ChatterBank1 min ago
Its up EURs
28 Answers
Commons voted 234 to 22 to stick two fingers to the EU.
What have all you Europhiles got to say about that then?
What have all you Europhiles got to say about that then?
Answers
is this about the vote for criminal;s scum?
great finally some gumption, now lets tell them to foxtrot Oscar wholesale!
great finally some gumption, now lets tell them to foxtrot Oscar wholesale!
12:59 Fri 11th Feb 2011
If it is about the right of prisoners to vote then why stick two figures to the EU?
The European Court of Human Rights is a distinct entity and is not a branch of the European Union (EU).
The European Court of Human Rights should not be confused with the European Court of Justice - the EU's highest court.
Would be helpful if you EU haters could at least get your facts right before launching yet another rant.
The European Court of Human Rights is a distinct entity and is not a branch of the European Union (EU).
The European Court of Human Rights should not be confused with the European Court of Justice - the EU's highest court.
Would be helpful if you EU haters could at least get your facts right before launching yet another rant.
-- answer removed --
once upon a time - the time of Magna Carta - England led the world in human rights. Thank goodness MPs are demonstrating their wish to get back to the 11th century.
Since the UK has agreed to subscribe to human rights rulings, this may mean breaking the law. Funny how everyone hates MPs when they decide to break the rules on expenses but cheers them when they decide to break the rules on human rights.
Since the UK has agreed to subscribe to human rights rulings, this may mean breaking the law. Funny how everyone hates MPs when they decide to break the rules on expenses but cheers them when they decide to break the rules on human rights.
-- answer removed --
Yes stop nit picking
It's a major victory against a body that has Euro in it's name
EuroParts in next on YMB's hit list - the EU's car parts arm
Then Europarks which is obviously the holiday branch of the EU
and finally Euro 2012 which is when all the MEPs get together to play football!
Don't - tell him that wikipedia and wikileaks are different though - that's a secret! or a nit pick - can't work out which!
It's a major victory against a body that has Euro in it's name
EuroParts in next on YMB's hit list - the EU's car parts arm
Then Europarks which is obviously the holiday branch of the EU
and finally Euro 2012 which is when all the MEPs get together to play football!
Don't - tell him that wikipedia and wikileaks are different though - that's a secret! or a nit pick - can't work out which!
All jolly stirring stuff.
However it will not (as it should be) the end of the matter. The Attorney-General advised those MPs gracious enough to attend yesterday’s important debate that to continue to defy the ECHR’s ruling will leave the government open to claims for compensation by aggrieved prisoners, who are no doubt already instructing their “legal teams” on how their disenfranchisement has wrecked their lives. The Attorney-General tried to persuade the House that the best course of action would be to try to persuade the Strasbourg court to change its mind.
Instead of worrying about the narrow issue of votes for prisoners MPs should be exercising their minds on the far wider issue of who makes and interprets the law in the UK. As I said in another thread, the government cannot choose which rulings it will abide by and which it will not. The ECHR has no powers to directly enforce any of its rulings and all it seems to do is to enrich lawyers who pursue their clients’ arguments sometimes to absurd lengths.
In my view the court has never really served any useful purpose to people in the UK. Citizens’ rights here are more than adequately protected by domestic laws which have been made in Parliament.
However it will not (as it should be) the end of the matter. The Attorney-General advised those MPs gracious enough to attend yesterday’s important debate that to continue to defy the ECHR’s ruling will leave the government open to claims for compensation by aggrieved prisoners, who are no doubt already instructing their “legal teams” on how their disenfranchisement has wrecked their lives. The Attorney-General tried to persuade the House that the best course of action would be to try to persuade the Strasbourg court to change its mind.
Instead of worrying about the narrow issue of votes for prisoners MPs should be exercising their minds on the far wider issue of who makes and interprets the law in the UK. As I said in another thread, the government cannot choose which rulings it will abide by and which it will not. The ECHR has no powers to directly enforce any of its rulings and all it seems to do is to enrich lawyers who pursue their clients’ arguments sometimes to absurd lengths.
In my view the court has never really served any useful purpose to people in the UK. Citizens’ rights here are more than adequately protected by domestic laws which have been made in Parliament.
A balanced and valid point - as usual new Judge.
I was intrigued by the input into the debate by Jonathan Aitken who does have something to say from experience, having been a prisoner himself.
Mr Aitken advised that the thinkers who imagine that convicts feel seriously disenfranchised by the lack of a vote are well wide of the mark. In reality, access to e-mail and the internet which is denied, is a far higher priority for most prisoners, and the notion that a vote assists rehabilitation with a sense of responsibility and a re-entry into society is, if not actually laughable, certainly a somewhat fanciful notion.
Compensation claims need to be resisted with appropriae legislation as soon as is practical, to avoid having to fight every individual case on its merits, which will cose the government a fortune in legal defences.
I was intrigued by the input into the debate by Jonathan Aitken who does have something to say from experience, having been a prisoner himself.
Mr Aitken advised that the thinkers who imagine that convicts feel seriously disenfranchised by the lack of a vote are well wide of the mark. In reality, access to e-mail and the internet which is denied, is a far higher priority for most prisoners, and the notion that a vote assists rehabilitation with a sense of responsibility and a re-entry into society is, if not actually laughable, certainly a somewhat fanciful notion.
Compensation claims need to be resisted with appropriae legislation as soon as is practical, to avoid having to fight every individual case on its merits, which will cose the government a fortune in legal defences.
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.