Technology0 min ago
One In The Eye For The Echr
No more 'human rights' to pull down statues and trash public spaces in the UK
https:/
A sensible decision, wouldn't you agree.?
https:/
A sensible decision, wouldn't you agree.?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. 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.
//I suppose the removal of a particular line of defence, or at least the tightening of it, makes some difference,..//
Yes it does, Jim.
I think what the Attorney-General was concerned about was the “Human Rights” angle becoming a carte blanche for protesters to do virtually whatever they wished in the furtherance of their cause. I’d really like to see the full transcript because there was also some comment made about the monetary value of the damage. With Criminal Damage there is only a right to a jury trial if the damage caused amounts to more than £5,000. There was mention that the monetary value of the damage could be a deciding factor as to whether the protest was “violent” enough to mean the HR angle can be rightfully ignored.
//yes, the same jury could acquit the same defendants on the same facts tomorrow.//
Indeed they could. But if, in the same circumstances, the defence attempted to introduce the “Human Rights” defence, the judge can use this ruling to prevent it being made before the jury.
Yes it does, Jim.
I think what the Attorney-General was concerned about was the “Human Rights” angle becoming a carte blanche for protesters to do virtually whatever they wished in the furtherance of their cause. I’d really like to see the full transcript because there was also some comment made about the monetary value of the damage. With Criminal Damage there is only a right to a jury trial if the damage caused amounts to more than £5,000. There was mention that the monetary value of the damage could be a deciding factor as to whether the protest was “violent” enough to mean the HR angle can be rightfully ignored.
//yes, the same jury could acquit the same defendants on the same facts tomorrow.//
Indeed they could. But if, in the same circumstances, the defence attempted to introduce the “Human Rights” defence, the judge can use this ruling to prevent it being made before the jury.
Zacs-Master // Apart from proving your OP to be complete nonsense by actually looking at the facts rather than jumping to a completely incorrect conclusion, you mean? You're seriously deluded, Khandro.//
You haven't 'proved' anything, all you have done is made personal attacks against me (& Guido) - as my personal troll you always do.
The ECHR can now not be turned to - or threatened to be turned to- on matters of vandalism & destruction of public property in the UK as a 'right to protest' - Fact !
Why it's "one in the eye" for them is it another loss of authority, (thanks to Brexit) over British courts.
If you had studied how this body has with stealth, incrementally grabbed power over all the courts within the EU over several years (read Perry Anderson) you would see that any loss of it is indeed, 'one in the eye' for them.
So either stick to the subject or belt-up; I'm not in any "holes ".
You haven't 'proved' anything, all you have done is made personal attacks against me (& Guido) - as my personal troll you always do.
The ECHR can now not be turned to - or threatened to be turned to- on matters of vandalism & destruction of public property in the UK as a 'right to protest' - Fact !
Why it's "one in the eye" for them is it another loss of authority, (thanks to Brexit) over British courts.
If you had studied how this body has with stealth, incrementally grabbed power over all the courts within the EU over several years (read Perry Anderson) you would see that any loss of it is indeed, 'one in the eye' for them.
So either stick to the subject or belt-up; I'm not in any "holes ".
hi one-eyed ABers -
amidst all the dross -
here is the appeal court opinion
https:/
amidst all the dross -
here is the appeal court opinion
https:/
I’ve read the transcript now (well, the important parts of it, anyway – it’s a long read!).
Very (very) briefly: the Court was only concerned with the Human Rights aspect of the defence. It ruled that the ECHR did not provide protection for the defendants because the protest in which they were involved was not peaceful. They found that the toppling of the statue and it being thrown into the dock was a violent act. It concluded that the Convention does not protect protesters who act violently and does not protect them even if they act peacefully but significant damage is caused. They suggested that the level of damage that could be considered “significant” should coincide with the level where the offence becomes triable “either way” (i.e. where the defendant has a right to a jury trial) which is £5,000. However, that was not a consideration in this case as the damage was caused as a result of a violent protest.
Very (very) briefly: the Court was only concerned with the Human Rights aspect of the defence. It ruled that the ECHR did not provide protection for the defendants because the protest in which they were involved was not peaceful. They found that the toppling of the statue and it being thrown into the dock was a violent act. It concluded that the Convention does not protect protesters who act violently and does not protect them even if they act peacefully but significant damage is caused. They suggested that the level of damage that could be considered “significant” should coincide with the level where the offence becomes triable “either way” (i.e. where the defendant has a right to a jury trial) which is £5,000. However, that was not a consideration in this case as the damage was caused as a result of a violent protest.
Furthermore you wrote ‘ you would see that any loss of it is indeed, 'one in the eye' for them’
There is no loss. What don’t you understand about that simple fact which makes your OP null and void and made you look daft?
Your continued insistence that this has anything to do with the EHCR, or that it has been affected in any way makes you look even dafter.
There is no loss. What don’t you understand about that simple fact which makes your OP null and void and made you look daft?
Your continued insistence that this has anything to do with the EHCR, or that it has been affected in any way makes you look even dafter.
Zacs- Master; //Furthermore you wrote ‘ you would see that any loss of it is indeed, 'one in the eye' for them’
There is no loss. What don’t you understand about that simple fact which makes your OP null and void and made you look daft?
Your continued insistence that this has anything to do with the EHCR, or that it has been affected in any way makes you look even dafter.//
OMG ! will no one rid me of this silly old faggot ?
There is no loss. What don’t you understand about that simple fact which makes your OP null and void and made you look daft?
Your continued insistence that this has anything to do with the EHCR, or that it has been affected in any way makes you look even dafter.//
OMG ! will no one rid me of this silly old faggot ?
Latest Posts
Crosswords0 min ago
ChatterBank1 min ago
ChatterBank3 mins ago
Starmer Continues With "Grossly...
News11 mins ago
Food & Drink14 mins ago
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.