Crosswords0 min ago
Stop meddling in asylum cases.
7 Answers
http://tinyurl.com/5wyqxy9
So each of the 47 countries which oversee the unelected European Court of Human Rights have issued a joint statement saying that the unelected Euro judges meddling in national affairs must end.
We have Ken Clarke to thank for persuading other countries to join the attack on the European Court, and also Tory MP Dominic Raab, who led the protest over prisoner voting.
But since The Council of Europe's declaration is not binding on the judges, will it make one iota of difference to their pathetic rulings?
So each of the 47 countries which oversee the unelected European Court of Human Rights have issued a joint statement saying that the unelected Euro judges meddling in national affairs must end.
We have Ken Clarke to thank for persuading other countries to join the attack on the European Court, and also Tory MP Dominic Raab, who led the protest over prisoner voting.
But since The Council of Europe's declaration is not binding on the judges, will it make one iota of difference to their pathetic rulings?
Answers
1 to 7 of 7
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Point taken Gromit, each member state's government appoints a judge who has in turn been chosen from legal experts whose independence is "beyond doubt", then each judge's nomination is then ratified by all the other member states.
Seems pretty foolproof, makes one wonder why they get so many things wrong.
Seems pretty foolproof, makes one wonder why they get so many things wrong.
-- answer removed --
Does a European judge think any different from a British judge. British judges are constantly in the news about some lenient sentences handed out. I don't think the British public care two hoots about prisoners getting the vote unlike MPs who seem to think any law involving themselves must take priority.
Maybe though its a step in the right direction!
Maybe though its a step in the right direction!
You have to bear in mind that judges interpret the law, AOG, they do not make it.
The reason why some of these seemingly ridiculous decisions are made is because the ECHR (and the UK’s own Human Rights Act which used the ECHR as its basis) is deliberately vague. Additionally it was drafted more than sixty years ago to prevent over-zealous stares abusing their powers. It was not designed force the prison authorities to allow inmates access to pornography. Nor was it envisaged that Local Authorities would be forced to make special provision in their planning regulations to allow “travellers” to ignore the planning regulations to which the rest of the population are subjected. I could go on, but I’m sure you get my drift.
The fault lies with the legislation and it’s a bit rich for politicians (especially the arch-Europhile Ken Clarke) to now complain that the law does not suit them when many of them have been instrumental in its continued unsuitable application.
I’m not concerned about the rest of Europe but the UK needs to regain control of its own affairs and that will only be achieved by withdrawal from the ECHR and the repeal of the 1998 Human Rights Act. Nothing is needed to replace these two pieces of nonsense because, as far as I am aware, the UK government does not subject its citizens to outrages that infringe their rights as understood by the vast majority of the population.
The reason why some of these seemingly ridiculous decisions are made is because the ECHR (and the UK’s own Human Rights Act which used the ECHR as its basis) is deliberately vague. Additionally it was drafted more than sixty years ago to prevent over-zealous stares abusing their powers. It was not designed force the prison authorities to allow inmates access to pornography. Nor was it envisaged that Local Authorities would be forced to make special provision in their planning regulations to allow “travellers” to ignore the planning regulations to which the rest of the population are subjected. I could go on, but I’m sure you get my drift.
The fault lies with the legislation and it’s a bit rich for politicians (especially the arch-Europhile Ken Clarke) to now complain that the law does not suit them when many of them have been instrumental in its continued unsuitable application.
I’m not concerned about the rest of Europe but the UK needs to regain control of its own affairs and that will only be achieved by withdrawal from the ECHR and the repeal of the 1998 Human Rights Act. Nothing is needed to replace these two pieces of nonsense because, as far as I am aware, the UK government does not subject its citizens to outrages that infringe their rights as understood by the vast majority of the population.
1 to 7 of 7
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.