Early indications show UK favouring 'hard Brexit', says expert The UK will trigger Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon, triggering the formal two-year Brexit negotiation process, by the end of March 2017, the prime minister has announced. The government also intends to publish a 'Great Repeal Bill' which, once given effect, will remove the 1972 European Communities Act from the UK statute …
She was running false colors in the Remain campaign throughout as she is in favor of exiting everything - including the Human Rights convention. And she is going through with it. Prepare for that one too - it will be sneaked through as a part of the "Great Repeal" Bill.
I've said it before and I'll say it again in for the example of Abbu Hamsa 'The Hook', the UCHR were a right royal pain in the bum and cost the tax payer a bucket load of coin protecting a previously convicted criminal and courts had documented video and audio proof of his guilt.
Let the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights fight for his rights if you're worried he won't be treated well.
"I've said it before and i will say it again, why do you need human rights, if you're not doing anything wrong?"
As someone else has pointed out , even Russian has signed the convention yet happily abuses human rights time and again. The convention is nothing more than ink on a page. True authority ultimately lies with whoever controls the courts and military.
I've said it before and i will say it again, why do you need human rights, if you're not doing anything wrong?
Read a history book, you fucking dolt, and you'll find out why we have the European Convention on Human Rights, incidentally largely written by British lawyers.
If you need some more guidance, the bit you should be looking at is the bit right after the Weimar Republic...
"... why we have the European Convention on Human Rights"
Yup. And even if the UK left the ECHR it would still be bound by UN conventions such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (Though in NL Mr Wilders is now agitating for NL to leave the UN too, I gather.)
"She was running false colors in the Remain campaign throughout as she is in favor of exiting everything - including the Human Rights convention."
Whilst I agree with the first statement the ECHR is a separate entity and whatever she may be in favour of it's not as easily disposed of as you seem to think.
"Opting out" the Human Rights Convention is particularly worrying, even Russia is a signatory.
The cases that end up being tried under these regulations don't tend to be about some hapless squaddie making the wrong decision in the heat of battle, but about abuse and mistreatment of unarmed and helpless prisoners or outright torture and denial of basic human rights (Remember this legislation came about in the wake of Nazism and the practices of the SS and Gestapo ).
"Opting out" is a seriously bad idea.
"including the Human Rights convention. And she is going through with it. Prepare for that one too - it will be sneaked through as a part of the "Great Repeal" Bill."
Good, fuck the human rights convention. A gravy train for legal parasites to make a killing preventing murderers and rapists being deported and allowing criminals to sue the police on spurious grounds. Go ahead mod me down, I'm not alone in my opinion.
There's no general prohibition in our Human Rights Act on the deportation of foreign nationals. If the Government decides that a citizen from another country, with limited ties to the UK, should no longer be allowed to stay and can safely be sent back, nothing in our HRA prevents this. However, under international human rights law, the absolute prohibition on torture does prevent countries from sending people anywhere where they will be tortured. But this is entirely logical. If we abhor torture, we must also abhor its outsourcing. If governments were only prohibited from torturing their own citizens, but permitted to send people to places of torture, there'd be little distinction between deportation and extraordinary rendition. Even before the introduction of our HRA, the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights prevented the UK from deporting people to places of torture.
Depending on the facts, a person’s right to a family life, as protected by Article 8, may also be interfered with in some cases if deported. But Article 8 is a qualified right, and can be overruled. As such, Home Office policy considers all the facts, including the reason for the deportation (i.e. whether a serious offence has been committed); the length of time the person has been in the UK; and whether the person has, for example, young children born in the UK, or a British spouse. This is the type of balancing exercise the Home Office would carry out regardless of our Human Rights Act, but it has provided greater transparency, accountability and oversight of Home Office decisions.
While the Home Secretary, Theresa May, has claimed that 'thousands' of people use Article 8 to stay in Britain every year, the number of deportations prevented is actually very small. In 2011, for example, 1,888 appeals were made against such deportation - only 185 of those were allowed on Article 8 grounds (less than 10 per cent of total appeals, and less than 5 per cent of total deportations).
Stop reading the Daily Mail.
https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/human-rights-act-mythbuster
"the victim always seems to come second with regards to human rights"
That's the crux of it. It seems that way, but how many human rights cases have you read? You've probably only heard about the ones that ended up in the news, and the ones in the news are featured because they are in some way unusual. For example, a case where it seems that the victim is coming second is much more likely to be reported, especially by an entity like the Daily Mail who have a readership which wants to be told that the ECHR is bad.
As just one example where the ECHR has made your life better; the UK police are not allowed to keep your DNA on file forever if you've not been charged with a crime.
"As just one example where the ECHR has made your life better; the UK police are not allowed to keep your DNA on file forever if you've not been charged with a crime."
No that does not make my life better, it has no impact on me at all as far as I can tell.
"No boltar, I don't have a dog in the Brexit fight, but I like to think that my vision extends beyond the tip of my own nose. Your's doesn't seem to do so."
Well for a start it was a somewhat tongue in cheek post which you obviously didn't pick up on , probably because your head is so clearly up your own backside you couldn't see it, but secondly the remain camp seems to be nothing but endless whinging millenials crying about their poor ickle futures. The hilarious irony being that if Generation Snowflake wasn't so fucking lazy and useless there wouldn't be so many foreign nationals in the UK doing their jobs for them and this whole Brexit thing would never have happened!
"the UK police are not allowed to keep your DNA on file forever"
Alas the articles below do not exactly give one much confidence that the rules are being followed, either in spirit or letter:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/04/05/home_office_settlements/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/15/british_police_broke_law_illegal_biometrics_investigate_crimes/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/03/11/home_office_warned_over_police_facial_recognition_abuses/
I can actually see some value to the public in the police being allowed to keep some data, subject to appropriate rules (not necessarily the ones currently in place) and oversight, but if even they are prepared to break the law then there's not really much left to have faith in.
"Good, fuck the human rights convention. A gravy train for legal parasites to make a killing preventing murderers and rapists being deported and allowing criminals to sue the police on spurious grounds. Go ahead mod me down, I'm not alone in my opinion."
Indeed you are not alone, which just proves that more than one person has no idea what they are ranting about!
Plenty of ECHR judgements which are very much in the public interest including challenges on sexuality and employment, military equipment to protect troops. Unlawful retention of DNA data etc.etc.
Not every human rights case is listed in the Daily Mail and most of those that are tend to be misreported!
Notwithstanding that one of the fathers of modern human rights law was Winston Churchill, who, I suspect has a little more gravitas than you do Bolfar!
"Notwithstanding that one of the fathers of modern human rights law was Winston Churchill, who, I suspect has a little more gravitas than you do Bolfar!"
Winston Churchill was also somewhat racist particularly towards indians. He often got it wrong. So whats your point exactly?
Go ahead mod me down, I'm not alone in my opinion.
Yes, other people who share you opinion are idiots too. Next time, before you start ranting against the ECHR, maybe you should actually read it. It is (in summary) actually quite short, and contains none of the nonsense you just spouted.
She was running false colours in the Remain campaign throughout
Of course... remember, everyone thought Remain was going to be the majority vote, it was a career decision, not a conscience decision on her part, her right-wing police state dreams belief in British sovereignty was aired in a foo-pah early in the campaign (you know the one, about staying in the EU but leaving the ECHR).
...we need a 'witch' logo (or at least a 'Sea Devil' logo) in these times...in the meantime, have a Paris one as a cheer up. (If you are wondering whyI don't know what people see in her either).
It's gone from January/February (according to Donald Tusk's account of conversations with Theresa May) to March in a couple of weeks. At this point given how things keep on changing the only meaningful thing will be the actual act of invoking article 50.
Anything else just amounts to meaningless words that seem to change on an almost daily basis.
"It's gone from January/February (according to Donald Tusk's account of conversations with Theresa May) to March in a couple of weeks"
If I remember it right Tusk assumed and it was politely explained that it was his opinion not quite reflecting the will of the gov. Since only the gov can invoke article 50 Tusk was wrong no matter how they wish it to start on their schedule.
"Since only the gov can invoke article 50 ..." From which truism it does not follow that the Government can do it without the consent of Parliament, because Parliament might well fail to pass the Great Repeal Bill, being as how most MPs know that actually implementing Brexit would destroy the economy. (You may have noticed that the Tory conference has almost destroyed the £ already.) So three things: sign the petition, write to your MP, and tell all your friends to do the same.
@ Yes Me
"So three things: sign the petition, write to your MP, and tell all your friends to do the same."
No thanks. When the population doesnt matter any more how do we consider that a good thing? How can it be considered good that politicians can ignore the people to take drastic and country damaging action? The gov is unaccountable enough already as Blair was free to launch 2 wars by just convincing the few with his lies. Now we have the situation of an absolute promise to carry out the will of the people on a promise made for the last few elections back to Blair but avoided as the people would answer it wrong. If we ignore the vote we might as well call ourselves the People's Democratic Republic of the UK.
Really love that title the 'Great Repeal Bill' , will they have it read aloud from Parliament by an ancestor of William Pitt the Younger (broadcast live by the BBC with the announcer using his respectful "State Occasion" voice) whilst Beefeaters at the Tower ceremonially destroy crates of bratwurst and French wine, whilst the assembled masses shout "Huzzah!!"?
I hear the Royal navy will shortly be ordering some new dreadnoughts and gunboats to patrol the English Channel and keep those ghastly foreigners out.
I wake every day hoping I'll wake up in hospital with a kindly psychiatrist saying "Well, that was one hell of a delusion you had there wasn't it?", but sadly so far the nightmare continues...
From what I can tell there may be debate, but the laws will be able to be repealed through the use of statutory instruments, which is basically a government minister signing it off without the need for a commons vote.
So we will have taken back control only to give it all up to a government minister.
So potentially goodbye working time directive, Environmental controls et al without even a vote in parliament
"intellectual giants Davis, Fox and Johnson."
There's some body of thought that these esteemed gentlemen have been appointed to those positions on the basis of "you caused this, now make it work" and their failure will be able to be used as a good reason to not Brexit after all.
If that's the case then I would expect comrade Theresa to keep saying that Brexit will happen right up to the day when she says its not practical without losing all access to europe and offers another referendum on whether people really want this madness.
Given that Pitt the Younger has been dead for over a couple of hundred years it's going to be hard finding a living ancestor to do that.
Why?
Evidence would seem to suggest that he may have been homosexual, or asexual, but it's not unfeasible that he had children with someone.
Ancestors go back more than one generation. After all, I'm a living ancestor of all my great-great-great-great-great-grandparents.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
