What is that "mate" of mine Sadiq Khan trying to achieve ?

 

You lost you demented little cretin, get over it and concentrate on your job you terrorist sympathiser.

55 minutes ago, bolty58 said:

What fucking dog shit you two talk sometimes (in his case almost all the time).

You know why. You just don't want to expend the energy. Fuck all to do with what either of you two posted.

But you know this.

aye 

sovereignty and controlling our borders

Europe is holding us back

we don't need them 

we can go it alone and the UK will be better off for it

just like Brexit

Just now, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

The wording of Article 8 detailing respect for private and family life, and the reference to "degrading treatment" under Article 3 leave far too much to interpretation

I understand why - it's borderline impossible to agree a specific wording when the convention is supposed to apply to so many different countries/cultures - but it's often leading to perverse outcomes and what we do about that, I don't know

Something needs to be done, though

I think I'd agree with all of that. 

I think where we differ is that I don't think withdrawing from the ECHR would solve the problem you're talking about. The wording in these treaties does tend to be deliberately vague. And the bill of rights or whatever they replace it with might be equally vague and open to interpretation too. 

Plus under the current system - if we don't agree with a judges ruling - then there is an independent arbitration mechanism through appeal. If we withdraw and create a domestic only bill, then a UK judges interpretation is final. 

So if you're arguing that the ECHR constrains our government too much, then surely ECHR actually helps by providing oversight of interpretation? We'd lose that if we opted out.

So I think you're right in that there's possibly an issue around our judges and their interpretation - but we'd end up with less oversight if we ditched it, not more. As well as all the problems I outlined earlier. 

8 minutes ago, kent_white said:

I think I'd agree with all of that. 

I think where we differ is that I don't think withdrawing from the ECHR would solve the problem you're talking about. The wording in these treaties does tend to be deliberately vague. And the bill of rights or whatever they replace it with might be equally vague and open to interpretation too. 

Plus under the current system - if we don't agree with a judges ruling - then there is an independent arbitration mechanism through appeal. If we withdraw and create a domestic only bill, then a UK judges interpretation is final. 

So if you're arguing that the ECHR constrains our government too much, then surely ECHR actually helps by providing oversight of interpretation? We'd lose that if we opted out.

So I think you're right in that there's possibly an issue around our judges and their interpretation - but we'd end up with less oversight if we ditched it, not more. As well as all the problems I outlined earlier. 

I've not suggested we should leave the ECHR, although I'm not sure what the concern would be regarding the decision of a judge acting under the legal system of this country being final

I don't think British judges are more liberal in their interpretations than the judges of the ECtHR are

36 minutes ago, Zico said:

aye 

sovereignty and controlling our borders

Europe is holding us back

we don't need them 

we can go it alone and the UK will be better off for it

just like Brexit

He’s a spaz

Im just hoping the antipodean sunshine doesn’t cause your circuits to go haywire like his did

Reform politicians not knowing what their own policies are

 

7 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

I've not suggested we should leave the ECHR, although I'm not sure what the concern would be regarding the decision of a judge acting under the legal system of this country being final

I don't think British judges are more liberal in their interpretations than the judges of the ECtHR are

Apologies - I thought you were arguing for leaving it.

In answer to your question though, there's nothing inherently wrong with the decision of a judge acting under the legal system of this country being final.

But you'd just been talking about 'judges being sympathetic to the point of naivety' so I (perhaps inorrectly) assumed you were talking about UK judges. 

My point was that at least under ECHR there is the option to appeal if you thought those same judges had been too lenient. 

I don't have any idea whether ECHR judges are more or less liberal than UK judges. Do you have any indication one way or the other? Or are there any specific incidences that have irked you? 

I'm not trying to lay traps here by the way - you've always seemed like a reasonable man and I'm enjoying hearing your opinion. 

14 hours ago, Cheese said:

Because Reform have told them to be.

Cheese speaking shite shocker. Folk have been talking about wanting to leave the ECHR for over 20 years. Reform have been going for about 8 years. 

Back in full swing tonight

Lefty loons and the far-right racists have been getting along all weekend 😁 

10 hours ago, kent_white said:

Did you read the bit about not taking any accountability? 

Don't think any of those who voted for Labour are ever likely to but keep trying.

10 hours ago, Zico said:

aye 

sovereignty and controlling our borders

Europe is holding us back

we don't need them 

we can go it alone and the UK will be better off for it

just like Brexit

You're growing on me.

7 hours ago, jmjhb said:

Back in full swing tonight

Lefty loons and the far-right racists have been getting along all weekend 😁 

I know who the lefty loons on here are. Point out any far right racists on here for me will you. I haven't noticed any.

😳

‘In a scathing 5,700-word attack on the prime minister and his would-be successors published on Tuesday night, Blair argued for the government to crack down on welfare spending, abandon restrictions on oil and gas and smooth relations with Donald Trump.’

55 minutes ago, BobyBrno said:

😳

‘In a scathing 5,700-word attack on the prime minister and his would-be successors published on Tuesday night, Blair argued for the government to crack down on welfare spending, abandon restrictions on oil and gas and smooth relations with Donald Trump.’

Bolty says he’s a pathological liar (hold on to your ribs here, he calls him Tony Bliar lollololol)

So we need to take this with a pinch of salt

1 hour ago, bolty58 said:

Don't think any of those who voted for Labour are ever likely to but keep trying.

Always the victims............. 🤣

2 hours ago, Spider said:

Bolty says he’s a pathological liar (hold on to your ribs here, he calls him Tony Bliar lollololol)

So we need to take this with a pinch of salt

Folk who say "Tony Bliar" and the equally hilarious "Wet Spam" should be rounded up and sent to the gas chambers

3 hours ago, BobyBrno said:

😳

‘In a scathing 5,700-word attack on the prime minister and his would-be successors published on Tuesday night, Blair argued for the government to crack down on welfare spending, abandon restrictions on oil and gas and smooth relations with Donald Trump.’

I actually agree with most of what he says, apart from the Trump bit

52 minutes ago, Sweep said:

I actually agree with most of what he says, apart from the Trump bit

Pains me to say this, but he is making some very good points and there's nothing wrong with smoothing relationships where possible

59 minutes ago, Sweep said:

Folk who say "Tony Bliar" and the equally hilarious "Wet Spam" should be rounded up and sent to the gas chambers

Can we people who say Liebour and/or Deform please? 😁

13 minutes ago, kent_white said:

Can we people who say Liebour and/or Deform please? 😁

Also two tier Keir and Rachel from accounts. 

They're all so cringey that it makes my scrotum involuntarily retract into my abdomen with deffered embarrassment when I hear people say it 😁

Just now, kent_white said:

Also two tier Keir and Rachel from accounts. 

They're all so cringey that it makes my scrotum involuntarily retract into my abdomen with deffered embarrassment when I hear people say it 😁

Rachel from accounts is my particular fav. 
 

Saying that, I’m guilty of using Fagash on occasion. 
 

I will cease and desist immediately and will only refer to  him as cunty bollox. 

1 minute ago, mickbrown said:

Rachel from accounts is my particular fav. 
 

Saying that, I’m guilty of using Fagash on occasion. 
 

I will cease and desist immediately and will only refer to  him as cunty bollox. 

🤣 - thanks mate! 😁

I must admit - I occasionally say Farridge so I'll try and wind that in too! 

Starmer getting blamed for energy bills going up.

Now, this is fair enough, after all he bombed Iran and blocked the world's biggest oil transportation route himself.

So he deserves this one.

53 minutes ago, kent_white said:

Also two tier Keir and Rachel from accounts. 

They're all so cringey that it makes my scrotum involuntarily retract into my abdomen with deffered embarrassment when I hear people say it 😁

And "Auntie Sharon"....

I wonder who brought this ban in….

 

Silly idea wasn't it.

Yet it continues to be the rule.

Maybe one lot has seen the light, whereas the other crazy set hasn't and is just doubling down.

I've just listened to an engineer, who explained that modern systems ( some heat pumps) can work both ways, and are very efficient.

They are used for cooling in warm weather, when solar output is at its highest, and sometimes when more electricity is being produced than is required, so actually installing such systems is a win-win, and is environmentally beneficial.

Instead folk will continue to use less efficient portable units that aren't as good.

Again, just like wjth EVs, this is another example of environment window dressing from this current government. 

Appear to give with one hand, and take with another.

Witless and grossly incompetent.