Human rights...

[stevie_r]

Did I really say all those things! Funny how I cant remember saying them or even find the posts. I can remember making some comments on how I prefer our laws to be made and administered by our own country with the House of Lords being the ultimate court of appeal.


I think you have become confused with what I have posted, dont feel isolated in this though, a number of people have done the same recently. It seems to have become a trend, especially with those who have a trait of believing anyone who holds anything but a left of centre view must be wrong in anything they say or think.

It is absolutely pointless harping back to places in history and suggesting things like how the mentally ill were treated in Victorian times has some kind of relevance today. I am glad you also mention the Iraq war and almost said it was Tony Blair that was responsible but seemed to hold back on that bit as it's better to sound as if the Torys have been responsible for all things bad.

Please look a little to yourself and your own prejudices before blindly accusing others.

Then I owe you an apology, I had you down as one of those that believed Britain was, and had always been, a bastion of fairness and a shining example of governance; I hadn't actually gone back through all the posts to verify that and had clearly attributed some of the posts I had read to you, wrongly - again for which I apologise.

I am certainly not left wing, nor am I around the middle, I am definitely right of centre. Personally I feel Blair is a war criminal and should be tried, equally though I feel the current alliance to be complicit in continuing our presence in the utterly pointless war that is Afghanistan. This brings me back to my point that I don't trust HMG, regardless of who is living in No 10. Does the House of Lords provide an effective check and balance to the government - I don't believe it does.

I fully believe that the ECHR and the HRA are important - regardless of how often our government disregards them.

 

[SocketRocket]

Then I owe you an apology, I had you down as one of those that believed Britain was, and had always been, a bastion of fairness and a shining example of governance; I hadn't actually gone back through all the posts to verify that and had clearly attributed some of the posts I had read to you, wrongly - again for which I apologise.

I am certainly not left wing, nor am I around the middle, I am definitely right of centre. Personally I feel Blair is a war criminal and should be tried, equally though I feel the current alliance to be complicit in continuing our presence in the utterly pointless war that is Afghanistan. This brings me back to my point that I don't trust HMG, regardless of who is living in No 10. Does the House of Lords provide an effective check and balance to the government - I don't believe it does.

I fully believe that the ECHR and the HRA are important - regardless of how often our government disregards them.

Thank you for checking that. OK, we may differ in opinion on how our justice system is regulated but Hey Ho, vive la difference.

 

[SocketRocket]

Do you ever stop ?

Stop what exactly. Joining in the debate and defending my considered point of view. So please inform me of what I need to 'Stop' , or are you another that fails to actually read what I say and create your own perceived prejudiced blinkered view.

Please, I am interested to hear the details.

 

[Sweep]

Don't preach at me mate. Of the 22 years I spent in the Army fully 5 of those were spent on operations or in harms way if you like.

I have a wife who is 70% disabled as a result of service in war that Britain was involved in in 2003, Iraq, you might have heard of it, I think it was in the papers.

That war showed our government up for what it is, was, and always has been. The government deliberately misled the British public into why it was necessary to go to war; we went to war on a lie. David Kelly anyone? Truth of the matter was that it was always going to happen and when we couldn't find enough of a reason we went anyway; primarily to suck up the the good old U S of A.

I am not preaching to anyone. I agree about the war in Iraq. Tony Blair was the first prime minister in history to lie to parliament and the country and be re elected. However, I think you will find that most who are against Britains involvement with the ECHR didn't vote for Mr. Blair. I never said we were perfect. I said we got it right more than most. It should be remembered that it wasn't only the Americans and the British in Iraq. There was a coalition of countries who all got it wrong too. It must be true. I read it in those papers you mention. The fact that Blair took us to war unprovoked was utterly disgraceful IMO, though it has to be said, Saddam was no champion of human rights either.
You cannot simply act as an apologist for Britains record without firstly examining the record of the others who you think are fit to tell us how to do things. Nor can you just dismiss the good things we have done. To conveniently forget the freedom we helped secure for millions in the world wars is simply ridiculous. Many on here seem very capable of listing where we went wrong with absolutely no reference to the good we have done. Maybe my faith in the British is misplaced. You may say I am nieve. But if you really think foreign powers are better placed to tell us what to do, I would suggest you are a lot more nieve than me.
Has it occurred to you that this may go the other way? What if the ECHR becomes say less forthright in its work. Not possible? Well, in the last 75 years, which lets face it is the relevent period here, three of the major European countries have had fascist governments. A number have flirted with communism and one new member of the EU was embroiled in a bitter war 20 years ago. Italy has had something like 50+ goverments since 1945. Britain in contrast has had none of these problems. It has had stable, moderate governments and has spent much of its time helping to sort out problems on the continent. Within the last 75 years, if you disagreed with the government in some European countries, you were executed. So much for human rights. When it comes to protecting mine, I'll stick with Britain, thanks.

 

[stevie_r]

I am not preaching to anyone. I agree about the war in Iraq. Tony Blair was the first prime minister in history to lie to parliament and the country and be re elected. However, I think you will find that most who are against Britains involvement with the ECHR didn't vote for Mr. Blair. I never said we were perfect. I said we got it right more than most. It should be remembered that it wasn't only the Americans and the British in Iraq. There was a coalition of countries who all got it wrong too. It must be true. I read it in those papers you mention. The fact that Blair took us to war unprovoked was utterly disgraceful IMO, though it has to be said, Saddam was no champion of human rights either.
You cannot simply act as an apologist for Britains record without firstly examining the record of the others who you think are fit to tell us how to do things. Nor can you just dismiss the good things we have done. To conveniently forget the freedom we helped secure for millions in the world wars is simply ridiculous. Many on here seem very capable of listing where we went wrong with absolutely no reference to the good we have done. Maybe my faith in the British is misplaced. You may say I am nieve. But if you really think foreign powers are better placed to tell us what to do, I would suggest you are a lot more nieve than me.
Has it occurred to you that this may go the other way? What if the ECHR becomes say less forthright in its work. Not possible? Well, in the last 75 years, which lets face it is the relevent period here, three of the major European countries have had fascist governments. A number have flirted with communism and one new member of the EU was embroiled in a bitter war 20 years ago. Italy has had something like 50+ goverments since 1945. Britain in contrast has had none of these problems. It has had stable, moderate governments and has spent much of its time helping to sort out problems on the continent. Within the last 75 years, if you disagreed with the government in some European countries, you were executed. So much for human rights. When it comes to protecting mine, I'll stick with Britain, thanks.

List the countries that invaded Iraq in 2003, I'll do it for you, the good Old US, us, Poland and and some Kurds. Unfortunately the marsh arabs didn't want to play as we shafted them the first time. We didn't have the support of the other arab nations that we did in the Gulf war.

Could you list the foreign powers that are dictating what we should do in regards to Human Rights? I don't think there are any. Can you please try to grasp the concept that we were major players in the inception of what became the ECHR, it isn't a dictate from the EU.

 

[Foxholer]

Sweep.

Your argument is self-destructive.

If Britain truly applied the Articles of the ECofHR properly, there would never be aruling that went against the UK )nd other) Governments.

As that obviously isn't the case, there is also obviously a need for an organisation to keep Governments in check!

Whatever Government that happens to be in power, their main priority is to continue to be 'in power'. That selfish desire fundamentally opposes the principles of freedom enshrined in the Convention, so again, there needs to be a 'checks and balances' process tht is not controlled by the Government.

The argument about 'faceless Civil servants' is spurious. That applies, or at least should, to all Civil servants from the general public's point of view. The reason Governments object is that tend to have control over their own, while an independent organisation is truly that - independent. That is a good, in fact essential, thing imo! As the folk making these rulings are actually rather highly qualified members of the Judiciary, I have rather more faith in their integrity than in the short term aims of out Political Masters.

List the countries that invaded Iraq in 2003, I'll do it for you, the good Old US, us, Poland and and some Kurds. Unfortunately the marsh arabs didn't want to play as we shafted them the first time. We didn't have the support of the other arab nations that we did in the Gulf war.

Could you list the foreign powers that are dictating what we should do in regards to Human Rights? I don't think there are any. Can you please try to grasp the concept that we were major players in the inception of what became the ECHR, it isn't a dictate from the EU.

I think there was quite a force of Australians in the invasion too.

Eventually the relationships between the orgs might get through!

 

[Sweep]

List the countries that invaded Iraq in 2003, I'll do it for you, the good Old US, us, Poland and and some Kurds. Unfortunately the marsh arabs didn't want to play as we shafted them the first time. We didn't have the support of the other arab nations that we did in the Gulf war.

Could you list the foreign powers that are dictating what we should do in regards to Human Rights? I don't think there are any. Can you please try to grasp the concept that we were major players in the inception of what became the ECHR, it isn't a dictate from the EU.

I could list all the countries that deployed troops to Iraq. Google is a wonderful thing. Sadly it would take up too much space. There were 40. No, I can't list the foreign judges that are dictating to us over human rights, which worries me even more. I don't know who they are. Surely you do? After all, you are so keen on them. And I do grasp that is isn't a dictate from the EU. Though as a member of the EU you have to sign up to the ECHR so it may as well be. Now, can you grasp the idea that the British people should decide on British laws and the British legal system? You see, I get the feeling that if we tried to interfere with the legal system of other countries, you'd be the first to complain.

 

[Foxholer]

I could list all the countries that deployed troops to Iraq. Google is a wonderful thing. Sadly it would take up too much space. There were 40. No, I can't list the foreign judges that are dictating to us over human rights, which worries me even more. I don't know who they are. Surely you do? After all, you are so keen on them. And I do grasp that is isn't a dictate from the EU. Though as a member of the EU you have to sign up to the ECHR so it may as well be. Now, can you grasp the idea that the British people should decide on British laws and the British legal system? You see, I get the feeling that if we tried to interfere with the legal system of other countries, you'd be the first to complain.

The question stated 'invaded' and there certainly wasn't 40 of them!

And you are simply wrong on the need to sign up to the ECtHR as a member of the EU. Th EU itself is not a member of the Council of Europe, so deems rulings of ECtHR to not apply to it! Though all EU Member States are also signatories of the Council of Europe, so within ECtHR jurisdiction. Use Google to find the relationships and the 'not to be confused with's!

 

[Sweep]

The question stated 'invaded' and there certainly wasn't 40 of them!

And you are simply wrong on the need to sign up to the ECtHR as a member of the EU. Th EU itself is not a member of the Council of Europe, so deems rulings of ECtHR to not apply to it! Though all EU Member States are also signatories of the Council of Europe, so within ECtHR jurisdiction. Use Google to find the relationships and the 'not to be confused with's!

He was responding to my point about coalition forces. He simply altered the point to suit his argument. A bit like forgetting two world wars. There were 40 nations who all made the same mistake as Britain (IMO) in Iraq. I don't know where the relevance if the EU / ECHR relationship is in this matter, apart from one wants to make our laws and the other wants to make our rulings.

 

[Sweep]

Foxholer, I refer you to my previous post where I said that Britain probably doesn't see human rights in the same way as the ECHR. We still uphold human rights. Maybe that's why we sometimes fall foul of the ECHR. I don't see why that makes my argument self destructive.
In the end, you and others are happy to devolve ultimate control of the British legal system ( which when I was at school I was taught was the envy of the world) to a foreign court. I am not. Simples

 

[Sweep]

Just so that "eventually the relationship between the orgs might get through" the EU is bound to adopt the ECHR through the Lisbon Treaty and I think this will happen soon if it hasn't already.

 

[Foxholer]

Foxholer, I refer you to my previous post where I said that Britain probably doesn't see human rights in the same way as the ECHR. We still uphold human rights. Maybe that's why we sometimes fall foul of the ECHR. I don't see why that makes my argument self destructive.
In the end, you and others are happy to devolve ultimate control of the British legal system ( which when I was at school I was taught was the envy of the world) to a foreign court. I am not. Simples

Well, that's complete tosh imo!

Firstly as a signatory to, and indeed instigator of, The Council of Europe - and it's body The ECtHR - it has demonstrated that it fundamentally does see human rights in the same way. The occasional detail and event might be in doubt, but judgement on those details and events that has always been the role of the ECtHR. It's only the visibility and immediacy of that that was clarified in 1998.

Ultimate control of the British Legal system is unaffected by the ECtHR or The Council of Europe! Rulings against the Government simply mean that the particular element of that breaches has to be amended. And it only applies to Human Rghts - which is the title of this thread!, You might find more support for the view that the EU and its Court - The European Court of Justice - overly affects UK Law.

As for being taught that the British Legal System is the envy of the world; that just demonstrates the power teachers have for government propaganda. That statement is certainly made in the US and other European countries. Are they all right? I believe there was also a parallel claim made about the NHS, but that opens a different can of worms! For me, it is the independence of the Judiciary from day to day government that makes the British Legal System such a good one. Of course, that's what I am advocating wrt the ECtHR!

 

[Fish]

Oh my, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, some may say.

Like Steve, I have scars both personally and emotionally from losing some very close friends and comrades after being a political pawn for our lying government/s for many years being sent, no questions asked into conflict on many occasions and I have been to places where my government wouldn't even admit they'd sent me to train insurgents so please......don't believe what you read or Google, you'd be better informed watching a series of factual exploits of Postman Pat.

 

[Sweep]

Well, that's complete tosh imo!

Firstly as a signatory to, and indeed instigator of, The Council of Europe - and it's body The ECtHR - it has demonstrated that it fundamentally does see human rights in the same way. The occasional detail and event might be in doubt, but judgement on those details and events that has always been the role of the ECtHR. It's only the visibility and immediacy of that that was clarified in 1998.

Ultimate control of the British Legal system is unaffected by the ECtHR or The Council of Europe! Rulings against the Government simply mean that the particular element of that breaches has to be amended. And it only applies to Human Rghts - which is the title of this thread!, You might find more support for the view that the EU and its Court - The European Court of Justice - overly affects UK Law.

As for being taught that the British Legal System is the envy of the world; that just demonstrates the power teachers have for government propaganda. That statement is certainly made in the US and other European countries. Are they all right? I believe there was also a parallel claim made about the NHS, but that opens a different can of worms! For me, it is the independence of the Judiciary from day to day government that makes the British Legal System such a good one. Of course, that's what I am advocating wrt the ECtHR!

Qatada? Full life sentences? seems to me the UK and ECHR see human rights in quite different ways. Otherwise we wouldn't be discussing this, would we? I seem to remember my teachers advocating the British legal system as the best in the world because of the way we used rulings to evolve the system. I may be wrong. It was a long time ago. Still, as you say, if teachers are just mouth pieces for government propaganda, maybe we should have a European body to oversee them too. After all, it seems we can't do anything good for ourselves. You are quite right about the European Court of Justice and that is what people are sick of. Others interfering in our affairs. As I said in a previous post, if we interfered in others affairs, I am sure you would be the first to complain.

 

[Sweep]

Oh my, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, some may say.

Like Steve, I have scars both personally and emotionally from losing some very close friends and comrades after being a political pawn for our lying government/s for many years being sent, no questions asked into conflict on many occasions and I have been to places where my government wouldn't even admit they'd sent me to train insurgents so please......don't believe what you read or Google, you'd be better informed watching a series of factual exploits of Postman Pat.

Fair enough. You would know better than me. Of course, if its secret, how am I going to know? It seems I am just one of the mugs who works hard to pay for it all. Do other countries do this, or is it just Britain that is ****? Serious question.

 

[stevie_r]

I could list all the countries that deployed troops to Iraq. Google is a wonderful thing. Sadly it would take up too much space. There were 40. No, I can't list the foreign judges that are dictating to us over human rights, which worries me even more. I don't know who they are. Surely you do? After all, you are so keen on them. And I do grasp that is isn't a dictate from the EU. Though as a member of the EU you have to sign up to the ECHR so it may as well be. Now, can you grasp the idea that the British people should decide on British laws and the British legal system? You see, I get the feeling that if we tried to interfere with the legal system of other countries, you'd be the first to complain.

I referred to the countries that initially invaded Iraq in 2003 (and yes I somehow missed Australia from it), whereas you refer to the huge number of countries that became involved once the war was 'won'.

 

[Fish]

I referred to the countries that initially invaded Iraq in 2003 (and yes I somehow missed Australia from it), whereas you refer to the huge number of countries that became involved once the war was 'won'.

Yes, there's a big difference in those that invaded, were deployed and those that became involved.

 

[Foxholer]

Qatada? Full life sentences? seems to me the UK and ECHR see human rights in quite different ways. Otherwise we wouldn't be discussing this, would we? I seem to remember my teachers advocating the British legal system as the best in the world because of the way we used rulings to evolve the system. I may be wrong. It was a long time ago. Still, as you say, if teachers are just mouth pieces for government propaganda, maybe we should have a European body to oversee them too. After all, it seems we can't do anything good for ourselves. You are quite right about the European Court of Justice and that is what people are sick of. Others interfering in our affairs. As I said in a previous post, if we interfered in others affairs, I am sure you would be the first to complain.

Sweep.

Your (and others) views certainly differ from mine (and others). You are certainly entitled to have a different view (that's a human right enshrined somewhere .... Oh there!) but to imply that your view is that of 'the UK' is simply wrong.

You still seem confused where the ECtHR fits in the British Legal system and don't seem capable of changing imo.

And would you not consider the invasion of Iraq a rather extreme example of 'interfering in others affairs'?

 

[bluewolf]

Not really looking to join in this discussion anymore, but in the interests of research, does anyone know if there's a public record of all recent ECHR rulings relevant to Britain so that the discussion doesn't have to revolve around the few cases that get heavily publicized by the Media.

 

[Foxholer]

Not really looking to join in this discussion anymore, but in the interests of research, does anyone know if there's a public record of all recent ECHR rulings relevant to Britain so that the discussion doesn't have to revolve around the few cases that get heavily publicized by the Media.

Yes. But requires the same sort of delving as most other courts.

It also publishes a Diary specifying upcoming cases and the States involved.