PDA

View Full Version : Out of the European Court of Human Rights?



M Swanson
03-Mar-13, 00:19
Well, I'll go to the foot of our stairs. Rumour has it that Teresa May has vowed to take Britain out of the European Court of Human Rights. Is this just yet another knee-jerk reaction to the recent success of UKIP, or is she serious? Interesting times ahead ............ maybe! What say you? :eek:

golach
03-Mar-13, 00:47
IMHO, we should never have joined !!!

Flynn
03-Mar-13, 10:24
Well, I'll go to the foot of our stairs. Rumour has it that Teresa May has vowed to take Britain out of the European Court of Human Rights. Is this just yet another knee-jerk reaction to the recent success of UKIP, or is she serious? Interesting times ahead ............ maybe! What say you? :eek:
There's a lot more to this than meets the eye.

There are workplace protections
prevention of discrimination based on age, gender, race, and disability
privacy protections
religious protections
the working time directive

all are included in the EHRA.

Repealing the EHRA has nothing to do with what the tories publicly claim, and everything to do with those I've listed.


If you want to live in a Britain where the only people with any rights are business owners and employers, then repeal the Act. If you want to live in a fair, just, and inclusive society, then keep the Act.

tonkatojo
03-Mar-13, 11:01
IMHO, we should never have joined !!!

Hear hear, but as Flynn points out there are a lot of cons with the pro's if it happens, the "cons" will have a field day against unions or any other section that gets in their way of the well off. has the justice system got enough clout against them ?, IMHO no.

Rheghead
03-Mar-13, 11:43
Vote Tory and UKIP and they'll take your human rights away. I can see that as a great vote winner.

M Swanson
03-Mar-13, 13:28
Well, I know of a fair few people who voted for Labour and lost rights themselves, because of Blair's hidden agenda and the ECHR, whilst paying through the nose to provide 'rights,' for others; some of whom who didn't deserve them, or contribute a thing to the system.

Rheghead
03-Mar-13, 13:34
some of whom who didn't deserve them, or contribute a thing to the system.

Who didn't deserve them? Do you really think contributing to the system is a prerequisite to receiving human rights?

M Swanson
03-Mar-13, 13:46
Off the top of my head, Rheg? How about, Abu Hamza, who avoided extradition for years, whilst preaching hatred for Britain? Or, Abu Qatada? Or foreign criminals who have committed barbaric crimes, but can't be deported. Or, votes for prisoners? Strewth, the list could go on forever, as well you know! ;)

Flynn
03-Mar-13, 13:52
Off the top of my head, Rheg? How about, Abu Hamza, who avoided extradition for years, whilst preaching hatred for Britain? Or, Abu Qatada? Or foreign criminals who have committed barbaric crimes, but can't be deported. Or, votes for prisoners? Strewth, the list could go on forever, as well you know! ;)

So now you're saying we should deny people their human rights, based on what they say or where they're from?

M Swanson
03-Mar-13, 13:57
Yawn! More twisting and turning from you Flynn. Where have I said that people should be denied human rights, based on where they're from? I was asked for examples of those I didn't think deserved them and I listed a few. I couldn't give a monkeys' nonkers where they're from. Just that their rights to jeopardise the safety of our people, should not be allowed under any law. Or perhaps, you think otherwise?

Flynn
03-Mar-13, 14:00
Yawn! More twisting and turning from you Flynn. Where have I said that people should be denied human rights, based on where they're from? I was asked for examples of those I didn't think deserved them and I listed a few. I couldn't give a monkeys' nonkers where they're from. Just that their rights to jeopardise the safety of our people, should not be allowed under any law. Or perhaps, you think otherwise?

NO-ONE - regardless of who they are or what they have done - should EVER be denied their human rights. To do so makes us no better than them.

M Swanson
03-Mar-13, 14:03
Political compass, Flynn? :lol:

tonkatojo
03-Mar-13, 14:08
NO-ONE - regardless of who they are or what they have done - should EVER be denied their human rights. To do so makes us no better than them.

The problem is turning the other cheek hurts only one person, as well they know and use it far too often. Take away their opportunity and see the difference, they will behave civilized or rue the consequences. Goose and Gander springs to mind.

Flynn
03-Mar-13, 14:21
The problem is turning the other cheek hurts only one person, as well they know and use it far too often. Take away their opportunity and see the difference, they will behave civilized or rue the consequences. Goose and Gander springs to mind.

I didn't say we should turn the other cheek, I said we should not lower ourselves to denying anyone their human rights - for any reason.

M Swanson
03-Mar-13, 14:25
I couldn't agree more Tonka. :cool:

I wonder how many of you, agree that Abu Hamza should have been at liberty for years, to preach hatred of Britain and his acknowledged support for the terrorist group al Q'aida, because of Human Rights issues? What about the rights of our soldiers, when he worked to recruit others to fight against them? Do you believe he deserved that taxpayers shell out millions of pounds to support his hateful activities; a demanding family and extortionate legal costs to resist deportation? It's an easy enough question .... yes, or no?

M Swanson
03-Mar-13, 14:28
I didn't say we should turn the other cheek

In all the cases I quoted, we are being asked to do exactly that, Flynn. Which you know, of course. But then politically you are in what camp? After all, it's only fair. You have no problem in stating the political parties, I don't support and yet seem strangely shy to reveal your colour.

sids
03-Mar-13, 14:28
A person can be deported, jailed, or whatever, but still have human rights.

Flynn
03-Mar-13, 14:30
I couldn't agree more Tonka. :cool:

I wonder how many of you, agree that Abu Hamza should have been at liberty for years, to preach hatred of Britain and his acknowledged support for the terrorist group al Q'aida, because of Human Rights issues? What about the rights of our soldiers, when he worked to recruit others to fight against them? Do you believe he deserved that taxpayers shell out millions of pounds to support his hateful activities; a demanding family and extortionate legal costs to resist deportation? It's an easy enough question .... yes, or no?

Let me get this straight, you support the withdrawal of human rights and the right to free speech from Islamic extremists and oppose the cost of locking them up in this country, but support the right of the European extreme far-right to financial support from the EU budget? So extreme politics are democratic in your eyes, provided the people espousing those extreme politics are not brown?


Ok. I know exactly where you're coming from now.

Alrock
03-Mar-13, 14:40
Off the top of my head, Rheg? How about, Abu Hamza, who avoided extradition for years, whilst preaching hatred for Britain? Or, Abu Qatada? Or foreign criminals who have committed barbaric crimes, but can't be deported. Or, votes for prisoners? Strewth, the list could go on forever, as well you know! ;)

Hmmm....

Demonise those claiming benefits by highlighting the most extreme of examples that does not reflect the experience of the vast majority struggling to survive on benefits...
Demonise the ECHR by highlighting the most extreme of examples that do not reflect the positive effects that it has had for the vast majority affected by it....

Seeing a pattern here in your methods....

M Swanson
03-Mar-13, 14:45
Wrong, yet again Flynn. I don't support the "withdrawal of human rights," in the way you suggest. I would however, like to see the removal of the interference in British Law, from the ECHR. Again, you know that, of course. I certainly would deport anyone like Hamza, who openly recruited men to fight and kill British soldiers. I most certainly would not allow him free rein to preach his hatred, whilst being financed by the British taxpayer. You obviously, think it's all okay! Just taking a leaf outta your book, brother. :D I won't dignify the rest of the trumped-up charge in your post, because it's absolute rot! As well you know, but desperate times call for desperate measures, huh Flynn?

Meanwhile, I've recorded your vote for Hamza.

M Swanson
03-Mar-13, 14:48
Hmmm....

Demonise those claiming benefits by highlighting the most extreme of examples that does not reflect the experience of the vast majority struggling to survive on benefits...
Demonise the ECHR by highlighting the most extreme of examples that do not reflect the positive effects that it has had for the vast majority affected by it....

Seeing a pattern here in your methods....

Well, what can I say? :D

I'm off to walk the dogs and get a much-needed breath of fresh air. :lol:

Flynn
03-Mar-13, 15:01
Wrong, yet again Flynn. I don't support the "withdrawal of human rights," in the way you suggest. I would however, like to see the removal of the interference in British Law, from the ECHR. Again, you know that, of course. I certainly would deport anyone like Hamza, who openly recruited men to fight and kill British soldiers. I most certainly would not allow him free rein to preach his hatred, whilst being financed by the British taxpayer. You obviously, think it's all okay! Just taking a leaf outta your book, brother. :D I won't dignify the rest of the trumped-up charge in your post, because it's absolute rot! As well you know, but desperate times call for desperate measures, huh Flynn?

Meanwhile, I've recorded your vote for Hamza.

You agreed with UKIP that extreme right-wing hate parties should receive finance from the EU - and consequently from the British taxpayer - you said it would be 'undemocratic' to deny them their say. NOW you say an extremist should be denied their right to free speech and denied any finance from the British taxpayer.


As Nigel said to the EU Parliament, "Oh! I know democracy doesn't mean much to you lot ...... " He was right, imo. Anyway, this gentlemen explains Nigel's stance much better than I could:-

'Democracy is the will of the people, not the will of those who "know best" for the people. The moment that only those parties who fit a prescribed, allowable "norm" becomes the rule, there is no democracy. If the EU is democratic, then it must acknowledge the will of all its citizens, not just those who subscribe to its elitist, corporist agenda.
There should be no preconception of what it means to be "European". To demand acquiescence to the elite's self serving diktats is autocracy. UKIP's stance is consistent with freedom and liberty. All ideologies, no matter how personally obnoxious, have to be accepted in order to maintain a real, functioning democracy. To censor is to deny freedom.'

You can't have it both ways.

Rheghead
03-Mar-13, 15:56
Off the top of my head, Rheg? How about, Abu Hamza, who avoided extradition for years, whilst preaching hatred for Britain? Or, Abu Qatada? Or foreign criminals who have committed barbaric crimes, but can't be deported. Or, votes for prisoners? Strewth, the list could go on forever, as well you know! ;)

Both Abus deserve human rights, they are human beings afterall.

What about others that haven't contributed to the system, our home grown criminals, the unborn, the longterm sick and the mentally insane? Would you deny them human rights as well?

Flynn
03-Mar-13, 16:30
What would happen if the UK withdrew from the European Court of Human Rights. The non-Daily Mail version:


http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2013/03/03/what-would-happen-if-the-uk-withdrew-from-the-european-court-of-human-rights/

M Swanson
03-Mar-13, 19:09
Ah! Thanks for the link, Flynn. I'm afraid I can't compare its' findings to the Mail, because I haven't read the papers' comment. As usual, I s'pect you have! Anyway, I've inwardly digested the thoughts of 1.COM, whilst noting, of course, that they are legal eagles, who specialise in Human Rights cases and not turkeys, who would vote for an earlier date for Christmas. Very lucrative, big business, ay what? Mind you, what's a couple or three billion a year for taxpayer's to invest in the ECHR? I suppose you'd call it peanuts?

Nothing on the political compass, yet? After all, it would help us to us to know who you support, so we can check that party's record on Human Rights, to arrive at more informed conclusions, as to their usefulness in a debate such as this. Any chances?

M Swanson
03-Mar-13, 19:48
Both Abus deserve human rights, they are human beings afterall. Ah! So anyone who puts the "rights," of our soldiers, above those, like Hamza who incited folks to kill them are inhuman themselves? I don't believe you mean that, Rheg.

What about others that haven't contributed to the system, our home grown criminals, the unborn, the longterm sick and the mentally insane? Would you deny them human rights as well?

Ah! So anyone who puts the "rights," of our soldiers, above those, like Hamza who incited folks to kill them are inhuman themselves? Not in my book, Rheg.

Rheghead
03-Mar-13, 19:52
Ah! So anyone who puts the "rights," of our soldiers, above those, like Hamza who incited folks to kill them are inhuman themselves? Not in my book, Rheg.

We are talking human rights, rights to which all humans should be entitled.

Rheghead
03-Mar-13, 19:59
The moment we lose sight of the fact that our worst enemies are also human then we are on very shakey moral ground.

M Swanson
03-Mar-13, 19:59
Yes and let's pander to the barbarians whilst sticking two fingers up to the victims. Let's protect the guilty humans who would fight and kill 'their' own soldiers and not even have the right to deport them. Sickening!

Flynn
03-Mar-13, 20:05
Yes and let's pander to the barbarians whilst sticking two fingers up to the victims. Let's protect the guilty humans who would fight and kill 'their' own soldiers and not even have the right to deport them. Sickening!

The moment we refuse our enemies their human rights we become the barbarians.

Rheghead
03-Mar-13, 20:07
The moment we refuse our enemies their human rights we become the barbarians.

Well said Flynn

gerry4
03-Mar-13, 20:42
Lets us use some facts instead of extreme examples. Of the UK cases 97% of cases filed at the court between 1966 and 2010 were dismissed during the preliminary stage. http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jan/27/european-court-human-rights-judgments

Also if we pull out of it how can we object when other countries like Russia & Turkey would be able to pull out. If our citizens are abused by another country, how can we get judgement against that country in the ECHR?

RagnarRocks
03-Mar-13, 20:49
The Removal of ECHR would would in itself be a bad thing if the proposal was as simple as that, but it is somewhat disingenuous to argue that point when a Bill Of Rights has been proposed in its place which equals the playing field and allows us self determination rather than having unelected non democratic European courts issuing orders. If we lived in a country that had a terrible track record on human rights I'd accept the arguments against. But the reality is despite all the socialist rhetoric the United Kingdom is one of the oldest democracies in the world, our laws may not be perfect but they are way better than many. To hand our legal system to countries with less than admirable histories within living memory is quite absurd. Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Greece and a lot of other European countries have less than admirable track records on human rights and have freely dabbled with extremism on both fronts, fascism and communism the somewhat idealistic view that leaning left is always right is risible in its naivety. Common sense is the middle ground instead of peddling socialist non sense about the right, communism the extreme left has killed millions world wide and still does. So what's wrong with deporting people who are a danger to this OUR society for the protection of the general populations safety, surely the rights of 65 odd million people to live here in peace outweighs the rights of 1 man to cause civil unrest do not the rights of the mass outweigh the rights of the one, democracy is a fragile thing and needs protection from extremists of all sides. If the Abu's had choosen to live within the laws of this country the they wouldn't have a problem they broke the laws and therefor the covenant of trust and protection that comes with that vanishes no one has proposed hurting them just deporting them .

gerry4
03-Mar-13, 20:52
If the Abu's .

Who or what are the 'Abu's?

RagnarRocks
03-Mar-13, 20:54
You'll find the ECHR is as good as the judge using it the French and Germans do not interpret it the same as we do,they readily deport non desirables and ignore parts which do not suit the political sensitivities at the time

RagnarRocks
03-Mar-13, 20:56
Abu hamza and Abu Qatada or are you aware of some others that are in the media regularly

RagnarRocks
03-Mar-13, 20:58
Russia and turkey are not currently within Europe therefor the ECHR is not recognised by these counties neither of whom have the sort of track records you'd be proud of !

gerry4
03-Mar-13, 21:03
If you looked at that article I posted you find they are signatories

A list can be found here http://hub.coe.int/web/coe-portal/navigation/47-countries

RagnarRocks
03-Mar-13, 21:09
Have you ever been to either ? signing something and adhering to it are quite another! I wouldn't rate your chances in either Turkey or Russia of waving your ECHR flag and expecting it to count for much on a Friday night in downtown Moscow or Istanbul unless you've got the British consuls number on speed dial.

RagnarRocks
03-Mar-13, 21:10
I'm sure Mr Litvinenko appreciated the Russians governments adherence to his human rights whilst he was resident in London

M Swanson
04-Mar-13, 00:29
The moment we refuse our enemies their human rights we become the barbarians.

I suppose murderers and accomplices in murders are forced to forfeit their human right to liberty by being incarcerated, then Flynn? So let's free them all and to hell with the human rights of the rest of us, huh? Extraditing Hamza didn't turn any of us into barbarians and nor would deporting Qatada to answer criminal charges in his own country. Sorted!

M Swanson
04-Mar-13, 00:38
The Removal of ECHR would would in itself be a bad thing if the proposal was as simple as that, but it is somewhat disingenuous to argue that point when a Bill Of Rights has been proposed in its place which equals the playing field and allows us self determination rather than having unelected non democratic European courts issuing orders. If we lived in a country that had a terrible track record on human rights I'd accept the arguments against. But the reality is despite all the socialist rhetoric the United Kingdom is one of the oldest democracies in the world, our laws may not be perfect but they are way better than many. To hand our legal system to countries with less than admirable histories within living memory is quite absurd. Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Greece and a lot of other European countries have less than admirable track records on human rights and have freely dabbled with extremism on both fronts, fascism and communism the somewhat idealistic view that leaning left is always right is risible in its naivety. Common sense is the middle ground instead of peddling socialist non sense about the right, communism the extreme left has killed millions world wide and still does. So what's wrong with deporting people who are a danger to this OUR society for the protection of the general populations safety, surely the rights of 65 odd million people to live here in peace outweighs the rights of 1 man to cause civil unrest do not the rights of the mass outweigh the rights of the one, democracy is a fragile thing and needs protection from extremists of all sides. If the Abu's had choosen to live within the laws of this country the they wouldn't have a problem they broke the laws and therefor the covenant of trust and protection that comes with that vanishes no one has proposed hurting them just deporting them .

A brilliant post, thanks RR. :cool:

Repped.

squidge
04-Mar-13, 08:49
You know what, whenever human rights are mentioned on here they are only ever talked about in relation to criminals and extremists. Dont people understand that human rights apply to all of us. That NO ONE can be sent for trial in a country where torture may be used for example, not just some crazy preacher but you, me, your children. These laws are there to protect us all. In doing so they may protect some pretty horrid individuals but thats not a reason to throw them all out.

M Swanson
04-Mar-13, 09:51
The reason criminals and extremists were mentioned, Squidge was as a response to my being asked for examples of issues that concern the public. I answered off the top of my head, as most would. Of course, as RR wrote in his excellent post, it would not be a question of the ECHR today and nothing tomorrow. A Bill of Rights is proposed, but of course, no mention was made of that by the usual suspects. Anyway, I doubt that too much will happen and the clue is in the promise that action will be taken after the next General Election. I'm not putting any money on it. Shame really I had more confidence in our judiciary and police force prior to signing on the dotted line than I do now.

Flynn
04-Mar-13, 10:55
The reason criminals and extremists were mentioned, Squidge was as a response to my being asked for examples of issues that concern the public. I answered off the top of my head, as most would. Of course, as RR wrote in his excellent post, it would not be a question of the ECHR today and nothing tomorrow. A Bill of Rights is proposed, but of course, no mention was made of that by the usual suspects. Anyway, I doubt that too much will happen and the clue is in the promise that action will be taken after the next General Election. I'm not putting any money on it. Shame really I had more confidence in our judiciary and police force prior to signing on the dotted line than I do now.

The big question is, the ECHR and EHRA would be replaced with a Bill of whose rights?

I am always wary of anyone who is happy to just throw away established human rights.


I suppose murderers and accomplices in murders are forced to forfeit their human right to liberty by being incarcerated, then Flynn? So let's free them all and to hell with the human rights of the rest of us, huh? Extraditing Hamza didn't turn any of us into barbarians and nor would deporting Qatada to answer criminal charges in his own country. Sorted!

Both had their human rights ignored, as the UK is signed to the agreement that we do not deport any criminal, no matter what they have done, to a country which has the death sentence or uses torture. Both Jordan and the USA use torture and the death penalty. Abu Hamza's extradition is particularly worrying as he committed no crime in the USA.

Flynn
04-Mar-13, 14:05
The latest Ipsos/Mori poll shows the public see Labour as best on Europe:

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3138/Labour-seen-as-best-on-Europe-according-to-new-Ipsos-MORI-poll.aspx

Retread
04-Mar-13, 14:47
The latest Ipsos/Mori poll shows the public see Labour as best on Europe:

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3138/Labour-seen-as-best-on-Europe-according-to-new-Ipsos-MORI-poll.aspx

Not it doesn't. It says that 25% of British Adults do. So that mean's that 75% of British Adults DO NOT think Labour are best on Europe and have an alternative viewpoint.

And as for "Human Rights" in this country.

Here we have Case A, he gets a bigger and more suitable house .. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9166482/Abu-Qatada-is-happiest-man-in-England-after-getting-bigger-taxpayer-funded-house.html

Here we have Case B, he does not get a bigger and more suitable house .. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/disabled-soldier-refused-home-with-lift-94100

Maybe if we are able to deport the scum at A we would have more available for the deserving cases like B who actually contribute to their country rather than preach hate and feed off it like a parasite. Thank you EHCR.

M Swanson
04-Mar-13, 18:30
Both had their human rights ignored, as the UK is signed to the agreement that we do not deport any criminal, no matter what they have done, to a country which has the death sentence or uses torture. Both Jordan and the USA use torture and the death penalty. Abu Hamza's extradition is particularly worrying as he committed no crime in the USA.

Then it's about time that we did have the right to deport terrorists, murderers and other serious crime offenders. Shame you're not concerned about the British. And let's be honest, what other country in the world, would open their doors wide to any ne'er-do-well that washes up on our shores? They don't even have to go through a criminal record check. No country, that cares about the safety of its own people would allow such abuse.

As far as the other nonsense about Abu Hamza is concerned ..... are you appointing yourself judge and jury? Who says he hasn't committed any crime in the USA? He's there to answer charges for allegedly plotting to open a training camp for militants in America and supporting Al-Qaeda in kidnapping 16 hostages, to include two Americans.

M Swanson
04-Mar-13, 18:36
Not it doesn't. It says that 25% of British Adults do. So that mean's that 75% of British Adults DO NOT think Labour are best on Europe and have an alternative viewpoint.

And as for "Human Rights" in this country.

Here we have Case A, he gets a bigger and more suitable house .. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9166482/Abu-Qatada-is-happiest-man-in-England-after-getting-bigger-taxpayer-funded-house.html

Here we have Case B, he does not get a bigger and more suitable house .. http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/disabled-soldier-refused-home-with-lift-94100

Maybe if we are able to deport the scum at A we would have more available for the deserving cases like B who actually contribute to their country rather than preach hate and feed off it like a parasite. Thank you EHCR.

Couldn't agree more, Retread. Bring in our own Bill of Rights and let's protect and look after our people as a priority. The cases you cite are monstrous and folks are sick to death of reading of the appalling treatment being dished out to far too many; especially to lads who have bravely offered to sacrifice their lives for Britain. Bah!

Flynn
04-Mar-13, 19:03
Then it's about time that we did have the right to deport terrorists, murderers and other serious crime offenders. Shame you're not concerned about the British. And let's be honest, what other country in the world, would open their doors wide to any ne'er-do-well that washes up on our shores? They don't even have to go through a criminal record check. No country, that cares about the safety of its own people would allow such abuse.

As far as the other nonsense about Abu Hamza is concerned ..... are you appointing yourself judge and jury? Who says he hasn't committed any crime in the USA? He's there to answer charges for allegedly plotting to open a training camp for militants in America and supporting Al-Qaeda in kidnapping 16 hostages, to include two Americans.

How do you walk with both knees jerking so violently? If we deny these people their human rights then we become no better than them and we prove everything they say about us to be true.

Rheghead
04-Mar-13, 19:33
Outgoing UKIP chairman in Bristol was saying we should cage immigrants in holding pens for deportation. Second solution?

M Swanson
04-Mar-13, 20:07
Any chance of a link to this post, please Rheg? Darned if I can find anything about cages.

Retread
04-Mar-13, 20:19
Outgoing UKIP chairman in Bristol was saying we should cage immigrants in holding pens for deportation. Second solution?

"One man and his dog" is reborn as a reality show ??

We could call it "One man gets to stay". What we do is number all the immigrants and tie sheepskin rugs around them. Then we get a sheepdog, or if Shep isn't available we just get Rottweilers dosed with cocaine kit them out with some genital clamps. Then we tell them tell that if they manage to get into the van placed way in the distance after passing through the maze of obstacles gets a passport and a half a million pound house on the taxpayer. What happens then is that after getting into the van all excited they are driven to Heathrow and put on a plane back to somewhere that they wont be tortured. Like South Georgia. Those who insist on staying in Britian are put back into the van with beastality enthusiasts that have been necking Tequila all day and are half blind with drink and as horny as teenage boys until they change their mind.

Its a win win. No animals involved so PETA are fine with it. We get a reality TV show and when we syndicate it worldwide the problem goes away. Only problem is in places like Afghanistan where they like a bit of beastility and man love. But then we could just call it "The Sex Factor", and alternate between donkeys and goats and make some cash out of it. They'll love it.

Rheghead
04-Mar-13, 20:25
Any chance of a link to this post, please Rheg? Darned if I can find anything about cages.


What they should do is build not prisons, but holding centres, and lock them up.

Not only that but after when the immigrants go 'home' then these detention centres will be turned into prisons to be used on the rest of us.


You’d need one or two in every city. Later in time, they could turn them in to prisons.

Retread
04-Mar-13, 20:29
How do you walk with both knees jerking so violently? If we deny these people their human rights then we become no better than them and we prove everything they say about us to be true.

So according to you .. By me saying that I would deny a hate filled extremist his "human rights", rights which consist of him getting sanctuary in a country that he illegally entered and preaches that he despises while residing in a house that most can never afford for free, courtesy of the taxpayers of this country (of which I am one), that means I am the same as him ??, a hypocritical extremist parasite?? and by my very disagreeing with him being here makes all the bile he spouts true ??

Explain to me why when it comes to the likes of Hamza and Qatada you left wingers are creaming your pants at the chance to jump to their defence. But where are you when it comes to defending the human rights of people like Ken Bigley, or the two soldiers led through Al Zubayr before being killed, or even the six redcaps beaten to death by an Iraqi mob ??

In fact .. nevermind. I'm out of this one. You are quite clearly bonkers.

M Swanson
04-Mar-13, 20:33
Ah! That puts a whole, different meaning to your original post, Rheg.

Can you tell me if illegal immigrants are criminals at the point of entry? If they are, (and I rather think they maybe,) what's so wrong with detention centres? The one I visited was certainly a lot more comfortable than a prison cell. So, it looks like a much better idea for not only illegal immigrants, but afterwards for our homebred criminals.

Alternatively, we could do what some other EU countries do, including France, and of course, Australia and America, and ship them straight out as soon as they're discovered. I'm sure that would prove a popular move to the public, in general.

drmopp
04-Mar-13, 20:50
Why is it we only hear about rights and not responsibilities?
What about the human rights of the criminals victims to live their lives without molestation?

Rheghead
04-Mar-13, 20:54
Why is it we only hear about rights and not responsibilities?
What about the human rights of the criminals victims to live their lives without molestation?

Agree 100% but do you really think that giving prisoners human rights increases the chances of offending or shows a lack of respect for the victim?

Flynn
04-Mar-13, 21:38
So according to you .. By me saying that I would deny a hate filled extremist his "human rights", rights which consist of him getting sanctuary in a country that he illegally entered and preaches that he despises while residing in a house that most can never afford for free, courtesy of the taxpayers of this country (of which I am one), that means I am the same as him ??, a hypocritical extremist parasite?? and by my very disagreeing with him being here makes all the bile he spouts true ??

Explain to me why when it comes to the likes of Hamza and Qatada you left wingers are creaming your pants at the chance to jump to their defence. But where are you when it comes to defending the human rights of people like Ken Bigley, or the two soldiers led through Al Zubayr before being killed, or even the six redcaps beaten to death by an Iraqi mob ??

In fact .. nevermind. I'm out of this one. You are quite clearly bonkers.

You don't sound any different to that 'hate filled extremist'.

gleeber
04-Mar-13, 21:52
I suppose I feel safe living in Britain with its traditional sense of honour. I can see how those extremists can inflame passions but they use it as a weapon against us. Its an honourable position not to send Abu whatever his name is back to Jordan. He has to be on his best behaviour when hes out or else hes back in and hes not that stupid.

RagnarRocks
04-Mar-13, 23:04
I don't recall the public being given any democratic choice on capital punishment ! With regards to deporting people to countries aka Jordan the Home Secretary has gained the required legal assurances that he will not be tortured so that point is a non valid argument. Sangatte was a detention camp made by the French and the immigration rules for non Europeans are they are dealt with at country of entry to the EU not funnelled up to the UK a breach of European rules by the French Italians Spanish Germans ! No other European country offers the benefits we do upon entry even though ,any are found not to come from the countries they are claiming to be from. The European Union is a piece of massive socialist engineering nothing more it swings constantly left but isn't accountable to the masses but rules by dictat no democratic accountability that I can see. And a well known way to conquer a country is to flood it with non indigenous people that way you change the national demographic. So all I can see is socialism in its most duplicitous form removing democratic accountabilty whilst flooding countries with immigrants who will change national characteristics! As for the name calling if you can't win by reasoned debate call someone an extremist. One thing I can assure you of is if given the choice there would be a lot of paedophiles rapists and murderers on death row and the majority of the public would be happy. Given the choice the public would vote to leave Europe and control our borders and laws. Personally I've had enough of back door socialism and all the an,e calling when you try debate an alternative point of view. As for scottish independence it was a Scottish King who formed then Union so you can't keep hopping in and out squealing bad bad Britain whe you created it !

Neil Howie
05-Mar-13, 00:55
Russia and turkey are not currently within Europe therefor the ECHR is not recognised by these counties neither of whom have the sort of track records you'd be proud of !

Agreed. Perhaps the ECHR are looking into 1939 war crimes and working their way forward?

(OK so rather looking at investigations in 1990 but hey!)

Interestingly there is a couple of cases coming up regarding Turkey, along the lines of your downtown one hundred miles from anywhere point*. (And I'm not disagreeing with that, just saying maybe things are getting a little better inch by bloody inch?)

The European Court of Human Rights is holding a Grand Chamber1 hearing today
Wednesday 13 February 2013 at 9.15 a.m. in the case of Janowiec and Others
v. Russia (Application nos. 55508/07 and 29520/09)

The case raises complaints about the adequacy of the investigation by the Russian
authorities into the 1940 Katyń massacre.

The hearing will be broadcast from 2.30 p.m. on the Court’s Internet site
(www.echr.coe.int). After the hearing the Court will begin its deliberations, which will be
held in private. Its ruling in the case will, however, be made at a later stage.
The applicants are 15 Polish nationals who are relatives of 12 victims of the Katyń
massacre. The 12 victims were police and army officers, an army doctor and a primary
school headmaster. Following the Red Army’s invasion of the Republic of Poland in
September 1939, they were taken to Soviet camps or prisons and were then killed by
the Soviet secret police without trial, along with more than 21,000 others, in April and
May 1940. They were buried in mass graves in the Katyń forest near Smolensk, and also
in the Pyatikhatki and Mednoye villages.

*
Oyğur v. Turkey (no. 6649/10)
The applicant, Süleyman Oyğur, is a Turkish national who was born in 1991 and lives in
Adana. He was aged under 18 at the relevant time. On 26 February 2009 the DTP (a
left-wing pro-Kurdish political party) opened a local branch in Adana. A group of about
30 persons threw stones at a municipal bus, then at the police officers who intervened.
The applicant was arrested. An interim medical report drawn up at 7.55 p.m. on the
same day by the Institute of Forensic Medicine indicated that the applicant had various
injuries to the body and head. The doctor requested his transfer to the emergency unit
of a public hospital, but this did not take place. Relying on Articles 3 (prohibition of
inhuman or degrading treatment), 5 (right to liberty and security), 6 (right to a fair trial)
and 13 (right to an effective remedy), the applicant complains of ill-treatment by the
police officers, the inadequacy of the investigation conducted by the public prosecutor’s
office and the authorities’ negligence in obtaining medical care for him.

squidge
05-Mar-13, 01:02
Explain to me why when it comes to the likes of Hamza and Qatada you left wingers are creaming your pants at the chance to jump to their defence. But where are you when it comes to defending the human rights of people like Ken Bigley, or the two soldiers led through Al Zubayr before being killed, or even the six redcaps beaten to death by an Iraqi mob ??In fact .. nevermind. I'm out of this one. You are quite clearly bonkers.I am not jumping to the defence of anyone, its not about human rights for a few but for us all. I do not understand why no one gets it. If we deport this horrible man to face trial in a country where torture is used the we can deport ANYONE just because we dont like them. That is not good enough. The comparisons you make between the deportatio. Of hamza and qatada and the deaths of Ken Bigley and the others dont make any sense either. Are you saying that because those countries, those extremists did those terrible things it is ok to dismiss everyone's human rights? That we should just be as bad as they are? There are things that make us better, and one of those things is our commitment to universal human rights, for everyone. We should be fighting to ensure more countries join us in this rather than walking away.

M Swanson
05-Mar-13, 09:46
Squidge asked:-

Are you saying that because those countries, those extremists did those terrible things it is ok to dismiss everyone's human rights?

Where has anyone on this thread even hinted that they believed in the abolition of human rights, Squidge? Retread has already broached the subject of a Bill of Rights.

Flynn
05-Mar-13, 10:01
Squidge asked:-

Are you saying that because those countries, those extremists did those terrible things it is ok to dismiss everyone's human rights?

Where has anyone on this thread even hinted that they believed in the abolition of human rights, Squidge? Retread has already broached the subject of a Bill of Rights.

Yes. But a Bill of WHOSE rights? Because I'll happily bet everything I have such a bill would reduce the human rights of the ordinary person in favour of those in power.

squidge
05-Mar-13, 13:49
Squidge asked:-Are you saying that because those countries, those extremists did those terrible things it is ok to dismiss everyone's human rights? Where has anyone on this thread even hinted that they believed in the abolition of human rights, Squidge? Retread has already broached the subject of a Bill of Rights. If we pull out of ECHR then we are removing ourselves from a system of universal human rights, where european countries work together to ensure everyone in europe and the rest of the world has the same high standard of human rights. If Britain pulls out then why should other countries join? If we are pulling out so that we can deport qatada or hamza to countries where torture is used then we will be able to deport anyone to countries where torture is used. That is an erosion of EVERYONE's human rights. Make no mistake we are discussing this because the condem government think the ECHR standards are too high. They want a lower standard of human rights .... They want to deport people they cant do now... So any "Bill of Rights" is not likely to meet the standards of the ECHR. I want these people deported too but Not at the cost of an erosion of human rights for our citizens.

M Swanson
05-Mar-13, 17:12
The latest Ipsos/Mori poll shows the public see Labour as best on Europe:

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3138/Labour-seen-as-best-on-Europe-according-to-new-Ipsos-MORI-poll.aspx

Totally false, as has been proven by Retread. But then again, I don't find you credible anyway. After all, you are on the Org, solely to promote your ideology, whilst steadfastly refusing to state which party that is, but insisting you know the politics of anyone who dares to disagree with you. Well, to have any worth in this chat, I need to know the Human Rights record of your party, to judge if anything good can be learned from their performance. What's the problem,Flynn? You're either very shy, or you know darn well that your ideology wouldn't stand up to the most casual scrutiny. I shan't be calling you Bashful, any time soon.

Flynn
05-Mar-13, 18:09
Totally false, as has been proven by Retread. But then again, I don't find you credible anyway. After all, you are on the Org, solely to promote your ideology, whilst steadfastly refusing to state which party that is, but insisting you know the politics of anyone who dares to disagree with you. Well, to have any worth in this chat, I need to know the Human Rights record of your party, to judge if anything good can be learned from their performance. What's the problem,Flynn? You're either very shy, or you know darn well that your ideology wouldn't stand up to the most casual scrutiny. I shan't be calling you Bashful, any time soon.

That's rich coming from UKIP's chief lickspittle and mouthpiece on the Org.

Why do I have to be affiliated to any party? Please don't project your own narrow values onto me.


Oh, and Ipsos/Mori, not credible? :lol:

RagnarRocks
05-Mar-13, 20:11
Now surely name calling isn't acceptable and denigrates the whole concept of informed debate and discussion, it's perfectly valid for someone to enquire another's political standpoint when they have willingly entered a political debate, if you refuse to disclose what your position is but constantly criticise others viewpoint one has the question one the motive and why the need to veil that position with obfuscation and personal insult. Myself I'm conservative on law and order, socialist on health and welfare and liberal on my personal freedoms. I didn't break into a sweat saying that or feel I've broken some secret political omertà it's called common courtesy and respect which seems to be lacking in this thread. Saying that the ECHR is a universal set of human rights is disingenuous as it is the product of a totally undemocratic political system which has not sanctioned by any democratic process known in this country. To state therefor that a UK bill of rights would give power to only one section of society is actually a total falsehood as it has yet to be substantiated in any meaningful form. The desire by some to hand over our representative democracy over to unelected beuarucrats is worrying as it isn't far from creating a communist/fascist superstate either being possible within Europe and its predilection for dabbling with both forms neither are healthy for the general population or bring added benefits the safe and sane ground is to debate rationally and calmly and ensure that extremists who by their very mature tend to gravitate toward politics do not seize the day and enforce their views upon the majority by calling names all you aim to do is silence opposing views and claim some moral high ground by the most dubious of means.I believe in democracy and the rights of the people of any country to have self determination, having served in the armed forces I've seen the best and worst of humanity and invariably most people tend to be moderate and want nothing more than to live their lives free from subjugation able to provide a safe environment for their families and wish that their political masters of all parties would be honest about the motives that are driving them.

squidge
05-Mar-13, 22:06
Saying that the ECHR is a universal set of human rights is disingenuous as it is the product of a totally undemocratic political system which has not sanctioned by any democratic process known in this country. To state therefor that a UK bill of rights would give power to only one section of society is actually a total falsehood as it has yet to be substantiated in any meaningful form.The desire by some to hand over our representative democracy over to unelected beuarucrats is worrying as it isn't far from creating a communist/fascist superstate either being possible within Europe and its predilection for dabbling with both forms neither are healthy for the general population or bring added benefits

Hmmmm - I dont really get what you are saying here - the ECHR predates the EU and the Common Market. Britain signed up to it in 1953. As I understand it it came out of the Council of Europe which came into existence following the second world war. The Council of Europe today is made up of a whole array of people and groups but which include representatives of the elected governments of each country and other people elected within their own countries parliaments. How is that handing over power? Doesnt it mean that our democratically elected government has an opportunity to influence? I dont think a Bill of rights will necessarily benefit only one section of society - I dont think removing ourselves fromt he ECHR will benefit anyone! The ECHR ensures that all european citizens have the same protection from a universal set of Human Rights. You cannot argue that the reason for taking Britain out of the ECHR is to improve out Human Rights protection and so we will be worse off out of the ECHR than in it. That is surely not something that anyone wants - British Citizens with worse human rights protection than those citizens in the rest of Europe.

RagnarRocks
05-Mar-13, 22:37
I take your point and its valid one but isn't the assumption that the ECHR is perfect and cannot be improved upon somewhat simplistic there's no reason to assume that any bill of rights would lessen the rights of individuals surely its down to how it's drafted and implemented. My main problem with the current system is more execution and implementation of the rules as opposed to the rules themselves currently the judiciary implement rulings sometimes in rather extreme ways that other countries would just throw out . Now whether those people are doing it deliberately to antagonise the general populace or show how wonderful it is , personally I don't have a clue but it is without a doubt a thorn laden issue with ,many rights and wrongs. We all want to gel safe in our own and countries and when abroad but at the same time when the very rules that are designed to defend us are used to harbour danger within our midst then it's a problem without a clear solution. Is my human right to live safely superseded by the terrorists right not to be deported to face justice elsewhere his safety endangers mine so whose rights come first

Flynn
05-Mar-13, 23:14
Now surely name calling isn't acceptable and denigrates the whole concept of informed debate and discussion, it's perfectly valid for someone to enquire another's political standpoint when they have willingly entered a political debate, if you refuse to disclose what your position is but constantly criticise others viewpoint one has the question one the motive and why the need to veil that position with obfuscation and personal insult. Myself I'm conservative on law and order, socialist on health and welfare and liberal on my personal freedoms. I didn't break into a sweat saying that or feel I've broken some secret political omertà it's called common courtesy and respect which seems to be lacking in this thread.


There is no rule that states anyone MUST belong to a particular political ideology. M Swanson is only upset because they don't like being proved wrong in thread after thread, and have consistently lost the argument, so instead they are now choosing to attack the person.


AS for name calling, I call it as I see it, and M Swanson has done nothing but spout UKIP party policy chapter and verse.

squidge
05-Mar-13, 23:18
I take your point and its valid one but isn't the assumption that the ECHR is perfect and cannot be improved upon somewhat simplistic At no time did I say it was perfect lol. It can and has been changed and improved over the years and will surely continue to do so and Britain ( or the rUK and an Independent Scotland) should be striving to be an Integral Part of that especially as Britain was instrumental in its beginnings.


there's no reason to assume that any bill of rights would lessen the rights of individuals surely its down to how it's drafted and implemented. There is EVERY reason to assume that - the reason for Theresa May's plan that we should pull out of the ECHR is precisely because the standards of human rights protection is deemed to be too high. The proof they require to ok the deportation of Qatada is higher than the proof that Britain is requiring is an example of that.


My main problem with the current system is more execution and implementation of the rules as opposed to the rules themselves currently the judiciary implement rulings sometimes in rather extreme ways that other countries would just throw out . Now whether those people are doing it deliberately to antagonise the general populace or show how wonderful it is , personally I don't have a clue but it is without a doubt a thorn laden issue with ,many rights and wrongs. We all want to gel safe in our own and countries and when abroad but at the same time when the very rules that are designed to defend us are used to harbour danger within our midst then it's a problem without a clear solution. Is my human right to live safely superseded by the terrorists right not to be deported to face justice elsewhere his safety endangers mine so whose rights come first

You suggest that the judiciary implement rulings which other countries would just throw out.... isnt that the point? Where Britain might uphold something that Ukraine or Bulgaria wouldnt or where France would uphold something which Germany wouldnt - the ECHR tries to ensure that every citizen gets the same rights that their rights are upheld in the same way in every country.

As for your final point Human rights dont come first or second or third they just are. No one's rights are more important than anyone else because all the rights apply to everyone. If the "terrorist" cant be deported then you and I and everyone else cant be deported to face torture in another country. Your rights are the same as everyone - including your terrorist - and thats how it should be or we would have people labelled and vilified when they have not been tried or convicted of anything and their human rights walked all over just cos we dont like them.

golach
05-Mar-13, 23:27
Just a wee thought, has Eck and his party thought about membership of this organisation, European Court of Human Rights, if they get Independence, I would suppose Europe would say that the snp have to re-apply for membership.

Rheghead
05-Mar-13, 23:32
Just a wee thought, has Eck and his party thought about membership of this organisation, European Court of Human Rights, if they get Independence, I would suppose Europe would say that the snp have to re-apply for membership.

Well they would be proper hypocrites to duck out of the ECHR if they have assumed that they have got automatic EU membership.

RagnarRocks
05-Mar-13, 23:37
All points of view are equally valid I personally just view my opinion but at the end of the day all this talk of human rights is a very new concept and as I was once so very politely put in my place when discussing rights with an Oxford Don who loved to play devils advocate on everything. You're rights no matter how well enshrined in law are only as valid as the person who decides to uphold them. So say you have a terrorist intent on blowing you up all the courts in all the world mean nothing as he doesn't recognise them. And there is the problem I've travelled the world upholding human rights in the past and why because other people decided they didn't want to uphold those rights for others. So every war,murder assault,rape or any other crime is a breach of human rights taken to the extreme every breach of law or slight insult breaches someone's rights so its a slippery snake even at its best. At its worst its a charter used by the criminally inclined to create a smokescreen to hide behind. So next time we have an extremist blow something up where scores of people are killed or injured weigh up carefully how much the rights are really worth. Stalin Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Mao, etc etc Osama really didn't give a fig for human rights they consider them a weakness to be exploited therefor society needs to guard its freedoms carefully. With rights come responsibilities !

RagnarRocks
05-Mar-13, 23:43
As a new sovereign state Scotland would have to reapply for membership to just about everything you can't ask for limited independence leaving the bits you don't like keeping the bits you do ! Mind I do find it amusing the act of union was implemented by the Stuart's scottish Kings seems odd first you join us all up now a couple of hundred years later you want out and not for any particular reason as you want to be part of Europe all a bit weird and wonky thinking if you ask me ! But hey ho have fun with it no doubt it's just wasting vast amounts of taxpayers money for something very few really really care about

M Swanson
05-Mar-13, 23:49
There is no rule that states anyone MUST belong to a particular political ideology. M Swanson is only upset because they don't like being proved wrong in thread after thread, and have consistently lost the argument, so instead they are now choosing to attack the person.


AS for name calling, I call it as I see it, and M Swanson has done nothing but spout UKIP party policy chapter and verse.

LOL. And still the top keeps spinning. Nobody, including RR has ever stated that anyone "MUST belong to a particular party," unless you can show us otherwise, Flynn. The only one who has insisted on labeling anyone elses political allegiance is YOU and in your usual abusive terminology. I asked you about your ideology, so it's performance within human rights could be examined in accordance with the records of the three main parties within our system, which of course, fall outside of your extreme, far left-wing principles and are therefore fair game. It's strange, that you and a few others can't see, that in denying anyone who disagrees with you the human right to hold an opinion, by employing bullying tactics, is risible. It's all basic stuff, but it can't, or won't and for some regimes, never has been tolerated.

I've been proved wrong in thread after thread? :lol: When was that .... I must have missed it? I've also never attacked you. I've asked a few questions you have been unable to answer, 'tis true and I know how annoying for you that must be, but trust me neither you, or anyone else on the Org has ever "upset," me. Or, reduced me to silly, childish, name-calling. It's not my way. Pax? :)

Rheghead
05-Mar-13, 23:56
I've been proved wrong in thread after thread? :lol: When was that .... I must have missed it?

Well I demonstrated that UKIP's position on climate science and renewable energy is erroneous if not worse. You chose to deride my posts yet it is you who claims to be the one who is bullied. I'm not anti-UKIP as such, as I am not keen on the EU, I'm just pro-science.

M Swanson
06-Mar-13, 00:01
Your rights are the same as everyone - including your terrorist - and thats how it should be or we would have people labelled and vilified when they have not been tried or convicted of anything and their human rights walked all over just cos we dont like them.

Oh! Is that right, Squidge? I had to read this twice to make sure my eyes weren't deceiving me. Wasn't it you, who out of context and disingenuously on another thread mentioned an Org get-together and it would be good if there was some Medieval torture equipment at hand to use on those who didn't care about Human Rights? S'pect you were only joking, but I must ask you to qualify your sentiments. Who on this thread, or anywhere else has even hinted that they "do not care about Human Rights?" I previously asked you to tell us who, on the Org, had even hinted that they believed in the abolition of Human Rights as you suggested in a post, but received no answer to that also. I thought you better than that.

M Swanson
06-Mar-13, 00:07
Well I demonstrated that UKIP's position on climate science and renewable energy is erroneous if not worse. You chose to deride my posts yet it is you who claims to be the one who is bullied. I'm not anti-UKIP as such, as I am not keen on the EU, I'm just pro-science.

Again, unless you can show me otherwise, I said I supported UKIP's line on Climate change. Are you yet another one who can't agree to disagree Rheg? I'd also be obliged if you would post where I complained of "being bullied," ( I am, but I don't give a rats' nonkers), or, outside of humour, (always heavily punctuated with smilies,) where I have derided you?

RagnarRocks
06-Mar-13, 00:10
Flynn I admire your passion on the subject but not necessarily your method of delivery. I just thought it might be interesting for you to state which way your political inclines are there's no attempt by me to coerce this from you more a method for me to gauge how we can discuss a tricky subject amicably and glean some rational consensus, I just feel that enlightened debate is better than tired old rhetoric if nothing else you can always agree to disagree

M Swanson
06-Mar-13, 00:14
All points of view are equally valid I personally just view my opinion but at the end of the day all this talk of human rights is a very new concept and as I was once so very politely put in my place when discussing rights with an Oxford Don who loved to play devils advocate on everything. You're rights no matter how well enshrined in law are only as valid as the person who decides to uphold them. So say you have a terrorist intent on blowing you up all the courts in all the world mean nothing as he doesn't recognise them. And there is the problem I've travelled the world upholding human rights in the past and why because other people decided they didn't want to uphold those rights for others. So every war,murder assault,rape or any other crime is a breach of human rights taken to the extreme every breach of law or slight insult breaches someone's rights so its a slippery snake even at its best. At its worst its a charter used by the criminally inclined to create a smokescreen to hide behind. So next time we have an extremist blow something up where scores of people are killed or injured weigh up carefully how much the rights are really worth. Stalin Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Mao, etc etc Osama really didn't give a fig for human rights they consider them a weakness to be exploited therefor society needs to guard its freedoms carefully. With rights come responsibilities !

Absolutely spot-on RR. I enjoy your posts, because you are willing to take all opinions on board and not afraid to write your own, which are honestly stated. Your many experiences in life shine through and I'm learning a great deal from them. I'd like to rep you, but I have to spread 'em.

squidge
06-Mar-13, 00:19
Oh! Is that right, Squidge? I had to read this twice to make sure my eyes weren't deceiving me. Wasn't it you, who out of context and disingenuously on another thread mentioned an Org get-together and it would be good if there was some Medieval torture equipment at hand to use on those who didn't care about Human Rights? S'pect you were only joking, but I must ask you to qualify your sentiments. Who on this thread, or anywhere else has even hinted that they "do not care about Human Rights?" I previously asked you to tell us who, on the Org, had even hinted that they believed in the abolition of Human Rights as you suggested in a post, but received no answer to that also. I thought you better than that.

No M swanson I said " Im sure we could find a few medieval torture implements for those who think human rights dont matter. " Did I anywhere said we would use them? No We regularly run a demonstration about medieval torture and have a brack and other equally unpleasant items for a light hearted or serious discussion of how unpleasant life could be. Im sorry if you were alarmed and thought I was saving something special for you.

As for your second post I quoted you and responded in post number 66. I did not suggest that people wanted to abolish human rights, I said dismiss and the reason for that is that by dismissing the human rights of people like qatada you dismiss everyone's human rights. That was my point.

You may expect more M Swanson but I expect that you will at least actually read what I say and not embellish it to suit your own odd agenda:roll:

Rheghead
06-Mar-13, 00:22
Again, unless you can show me otherwise, I said I supported UKIP's line on Climate change. Are you yet another one who can't agree to disagree Rheg? I'd also be obliged if you would post where I complained of "being bullied," ( I am, but I don't give a rats' nonkers), or, outside of humour, (always heavily punctuated with smilies,) where I have derided you?

You whole approach to 'debating' is the deride others opinions and views and then complain of being got at when it doesn't go your way.

Agree to disagee? When are you going to start and practice what you preach?

M Swanson
06-Mar-13, 00:31
Oh! Right! I was just wondering why you would specifically link those 'who don't care about Human Rights,' which is currently under discussion, to Medieval torture
on an otherwise amicable and quite unconnected thread.

Thanks for the clarification that you weren't accusing anyone of abolishing Human Rights ..... just dismissing them on the two examples you cite.

Two questions and now two answers. Sounds fair and reasonable to me. BTW what is my "odd agenda?" Darned if I know. :D

M Swanson
06-Mar-13, 00:36
You whole approach to 'debating' is the deride others opinions and views and then complain of being got at when it doesn't go your way.

Agree to disagee? When are you going to start and practice what you preach?

Then show me where, Rheg? When have I complained? What I do do, is either ignore blatant nastiness, or give a lighthearted response. As far as "practising what I preach," I'm sure you'll find me "agreeing to disagree," more than once. What I don't do is agree to agree, or agree to disagree when I don't. I'd prefer to fold my tent.
Again, seems fair to me.

Rheghead
06-Mar-13, 00:39
You may expect more M Swanson but I expect that you will at least actually read what I say and not embellish it to suit your own odd agenda:roll:

Indeed. It is deliberate, calculated and it is being clever.

M Swanson
06-Mar-13, 00:42
Indeed. It is deliberate, calculated and it is being clever.

Good grief Rheg. How did you jump to that? I ask two questions and eventually receive two answers. What's so clever about that?

RagnarRocks
06-Mar-13, 08:07
Not sure why you have to relate to medieval torture, history is a bad mistress always written by the victor unless you hold her tightly, look around the world today, I can guarantee torture is in use in many countries some of whom have signed up to the ECHR, I mean nothing like a bit of extraordinary rendition to cover your tracks. Gitmo is hardly butlins, would you consider being dragged chained behind a car torture aka Kenya. Let alone the abuses going on in china which the world ignores because we buy most of our trade goods from their so before you shout Oooh I'm so good I abhor torture and uphold human rights go check around your house how much is of Chinese origin then see how comfortable you feel in the knowledge that your utter hypocrisy is staring you in the face. They have the death penalty for offences here wouldn't get you 6 months, a single child policy with severe punishments for those not adhering, corruption atypical of communist states the world over to ahem without trying hard but a few issues. Or lets try Mexico Columbia or a lot of s America ,in fact best not that's a big can of worms. So being sanctimonious about things doesn't help the situation and calling names won't help either. As for torture I abhor it you're quite right it has no place in a civilised society but if you give me a terrorist who has hidden a bomb ina large conurbation and we are on a time limit before carnage, that's when the line gets crossed. As with so many things sitting in an armchair espousing liberal views is easy ideology is just that, but put those feet in big boots in a hard situation you'll find yourself questioning many aspects of your personality.

Flynn
06-Mar-13, 08:48
LOL. And still the top keeps spinning. Nobody, including RR has ever stated that anyone "MUST belong to a particular party," unless you can show us otherwise, Flynn. The only one who has insisted on labeling anyone elses political allegiance is YOU and in your usual abusive terminology. I asked you about your ideology, so it's performance within human rights could be examined in accordance with the records of the three main parties within our system, which of course, fall outside of your extreme, far left-wing principles and are therefore fair game. It's strange, that you and a few others can't see, that in denying anyone who disagrees with you the human right to hold an opinion, by employing bullying tactics, is risible. It's all basic stuff, but it can't, or won't and for some regimes, never has been tolerated.

I've been proved wrong in thread after thread? :lol: When was that .... I must have missed it? I've also never attacked you. I've asked a few questions you have been unable to answer, 'tis true and I know how annoying for you that must be, but trust me neither you, or anyone else on the Org has ever "upset," me. Or, reduced me to silly, childish, name-calling. It's not my way. Pax? :)

I haven't denied you the right to an opinion. I've argued your opinion and proved you wrong all over this forum. So much so that now you are trying to attack me personally because you can't argue the point.


Human rights are a universal right that apply as much to our enemies as they do to ourselves. To be better than them we have to, and have to be seen to, do the utmost to uphold their human rights no matter what their crime.

Flynn
06-Mar-13, 08:49
Flynn I admire your passion on the subject but not necessarily your method of delivery. I just thought it might be interesting for you to state which way your political inclines are there's no attempt by me to coerce this from you more a method for me to gauge how we can discuss a tricky subject amicably and glean some rational consensus, I just feel that enlightened debate is better than tired old rhetoric if nothing else you can always agree to disagree

If M Swanson can't grasp my standpoint from my comments then perhaps they should go back to getting all their information from their bible.

squidge
06-Mar-13, 08:55
Ragnar Rocks who is calling names now? Sanctimonious? Hypocrite? There is no need for patronising foot stamping, talking of which you know nothing about where my big feet have been which is evidenced by the fact that you dont understand the medieval torture stuff. You are new here and Have complained about being treated rudely. I have not done so and so I would request that you are not rude to me either.

Most of us dont face the decisions you mention and most of us dont have to decide whether the decision made when faced with that sort of situation is right or wrong. Thank God. But The way to persuade other countries to stop using torture is by example and by political pressure. Not by pulling out of a convention which guarantees the highest level of human rights. The ECHR is an important part of that.

RagnarRocks
06-Mar-13, 09:17
If you read carefully I don't call anyone sanctimonious or a hypocrite I request you check your goods and see how you feel . Now as I can deduce from your post you are either one feeling guilty because you've checked your house realised how many goods are made in china in sweat shop factories and by children in conditions you'd find absolutely abhorrent. Or your hell bent of personalising everything in which case lessons on comprehension of the English language any address that situation either way squabbling like children doesn't make for a good debate.

M Swanson
06-Mar-13, 11:15
I haven't denied you the right to an opinion. I've argued your opinion and proved you wrong all over this forum. So much so that now you are trying to attack me personally because you can't argue the point.


If M Swanson can't grasp my standpoint from my comments then perhaps they should go back to getting all their information from their bible.

I see! Attacking people who hold opinions that are contrary to yours, is what you do, Flynn. There is absolutely no give, or take. I notice you fail, yet again, to highlight where you have proven me wrong, but no matter. The bottom line is the fact that there are those who will agree with you and those who agree with me, which I feel is healthy and acceptable. I don't personalise - it's futile.

I much prefer to be transparent and honest about my political stance, but as you have no intention, for probably the best of reasons, of naming your ideology, I will leave it at that. Onwards and upwards, huh Flynn.

M Swanson
06-Mar-13, 11:20
If you read carefully I don't call anyone sanctimonious or a hypocrite I request you check your goods and see how you feel . Now as I can deduce from your post you are either one feeling guilty because you've checked your house realised how many goods are made in china in sweat shop factories and by children in conditions you'd find absolutely abhorrent. Or your hell bent of personalising everything in which case lessons on comprehension of the English language any address that situation either way squabbling like children doesn't make for a good debate.

Whoops! I should have read your post, before submitting my last one, RR. You are absolutely right! Squabbling like children contributes nothing of value to any debate, so my apologies to all for any part I played in the nonsense. I'd just briefly add, that I consider your appearance on the Org as a breath of fresh air and your posts very fair and informative. Thanks RR.

I rest my case. :cool:

squidge
06-Mar-13, 11:38
ok RagnarRocks - I accept that you were absolutely NOT suggesting that I was sanctimonious or hypocritical or even trying to infer that. :roll: Im not sure why what a person has in a cupboard suggests to you that supporting the EHCR may be hypocritical. The ECHR is about more than torture but it was a useful example to show why, under this government a Bill of Rights is likely to be less rigorous than the ECHR. It remains my opinion that the only way to challenge Human rights abuses by governments of other countries is to work as part of an organisation which offers a high standard of universal human rights and to commit to that in thought and word and deed if you like. Individuals make their choices and deal with the consequences of that - whether it is shopping at primark or torturing a terrorist to encourage them to reveal the location of a bomb. Individuals have to make their peace with that. On a government level though we need to maintain the highest possible commitment to human rights for all our citizens - even those who we fundamentally disagree with.

Flynn
06-Mar-13, 12:22
Whoops! I should have read your post, before submitting my last one, RR. You are absolutely right! Squabbling like children contributes nothing of value to any debate, so my apologies to all for any part I played in the nonsense. I'd just briefly add, that I consider your appearance on the Org as a breath of fresh air and your posts very fair and informative. Thanks RR.

I rest my case. :cool:

Oh dear, did you have to go ask a UKIP 'friend' to register just so you had someone to agree with? How tragic.

RagnarRocks
06-Mar-13, 14:18
Just for the record I have not and will not vote ukip but I'd not vote for the communist party or Bnp either I've voted labour and been let down voted conservative and been let down and wouldn't dream of voting libdem so I guess that places me as a floating voter which I'm sorry if that upsets you Flynn but I have not and will never fit neatly into a box I prefer to keep and open mind and an open ballot rather than just following some rigid political,agenda that is intractable and inflexible and doesn't really belong in the real world but in a book written by an academic about theoretical living! But keep trying I've not felt vaguely ruffled by such obvious attempts to rile its amusing but that's about it. Now where did I put my Noddy book I need some serious political enlightenment .