6 coppers to take him down or 1 member of the public with his bike? 
 

 

 

2 hours ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

It's certainly true that it was drafted without the world as it is today in mind and that as a result the wording of certain articles of the Convention are leading to absurd outcomes in the courts

Agreed. Fuck it off, draft something else and ask every single country if they are in or out.

 

3 hours ago, royal white said:

Was torture, slavery and killing still a thing in England in 1951? 

TB was. let's bring that back.

1 hour ago, Traf said:

TB was. let's bring that back.

It’s still here and cases are rising 👍

23 minutes ago, royal white said:

It’s still here and cases are rising 👍

At least something's on the up.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/finally-oldham-demand-public-inquiry-30994036?utm_source=linkCopy&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar

 

Good news. Good words from the Muslim Councilor too.

8 hours ago, bolty58 said:

Well done mate. Precisely the point.

Outdated.

Folk like to trip out the Churchill line as justification for current interpretations.

He'd be livid if he saw how it is abused now.

A number of judges with a political leaning seem to be applying ridiculous interpretations to protect criminals.

It also isn't pertinent to say that they are applying domestic law; those of the echr were incorporated into UK law under the human rights act.

We can amend/scrap them, if there is a political will.

We don't have to apply rulings from it, if we choose not to, but we do so more than anyone else.

All semblance of common sense gone out of the window, with lawyers hiding behind "the law".

Sooner or later, a government will get to grips with it all. Hopefully sooner.

6 hours ago, bolty58 said:

A leopard never changes it's spots. Back to attempted belittling.

Back to the old 'don't call us stupid' line.

As the famous aphorism goes, comment is free, facts are sacred.

If someone doesn't know something, or is unaware of the context that can change the way the opinion is viewed, that's not belittling.

You daft old goat (that's belittling)

1 hour ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Folk like to trip out the Churchill line as justification for current interpretations.

He'd be livid if he saw how it is abused now.

A number of judges with a political leaning seem to be applying ridiculous interpretations to protect criminals.

It also isn't pertinent to say that they are applying domestic law; those of the echr were incorporated into UK law under the human rights act.

We can amend/scrap them, if there is a political will.

We don't have to apply rulings from it, if we choose not to, but we do so more than anyone else.

All semblance of common sense gone out of the window, with lawyers hiding behind "the law".

Sooner or later, a government will get to grips with it all. Hopefully sooner.

Sorry but that is the most generalised and wide sweeping post on here in a long time.

Abused? The law is the law.

The fact that people are railing against the ECHR as some sort of demagogic rule book set up by some European overlords is quite honestly baffling in its misunderstanding.

Across Europe the ECHR ensures the right to free elections such as happened in Georgia or for Turkish Cypriots. It is a living instrument - it isn't a dusty old tome as you are inferring and has developed over time to deal with the world as it changes.

It is there to protect people from the State. It's also baffling that so called libertarians hate it so much. It demonstrates that what actually they want isn't liberty but actually are more sympathetic to a form of populist style dictatorship-lite where their views are the only ones that should be heard. It.is the last resort to holding ones nation state accountable when abuses are happening. Not only that leaving would affect the peace in NI immediately.

The ECHR has nothing to do with the EU - it is an adjunct of the Council of Europe of which 19 of the 46 member states are not members of the EU.

But thankfully, only the slightly bonkers fringe in the HoC does want to leave - most MPs who say they do, do it to whip up some idiotic anti European fervor in a base vote.

I doubt we'll never leave, and indeed, nor should we.

 

 

14 hours ago, Not in Crawley said:

Sorry but that is the most generalised and wide sweeping post on here in a long time.

Abused? The law is the law.

The fact that people are railing against the ECHR as some sort of demagogic rule book set up by some European overlords is quite honestly baffling in its misunderstanding.

Across Europe the ECHR ensures the right to free elections such as happened in Georgia or for Turkish Cypriots. It is a living instrument - it isn't a dusty old tome as you are inferring and has developed over time to deal with the world as it changes.

It is there to protect people from the State. It's also baffling that so called libertarians hate it so much. It demonstrates that what actually they want isn't liberty but actually are more sympathetic to a form of populist style dictatorship-lite where their views are the only ones that should be heard. It.is the last resort to holding ones nation state accountable when abuses are happening. Not only that leaving would affect the peace in NI immediately.

The ECHR has nothing to do with the EU - it is an adjunct of the Council of Europe of which 19 of the 46 member states are not members of the EU.

But thankfully, only the slightly bonkers fringe in the HoC does want to leave - most MPs who say they do, do it to whip up some idiotic anti European fervor in a base vote.

I doubt we'll never leave, and indeed, nor should we.

 

Top response. It was a baffling, massively exaggerated post.

 Heard on a podcast a while back about all their achievements.

Tackling child abuse, protecting elections, prevention of torture…

& that’s only a handful.

13 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

Top response. It was a baffling, massively exaggerated post.

 Heard on a podcast a while back about all their achievements.

Tackling child abuse, protecting elections, prevention of torture…

& that’s only a handful.

So are you suggesting  if we left the ECHR child abuse would rise (it already is massively) elections would stop, torture would be a thing……. In fact what’s their achievement in prevention of torture? Genuinely interested. 

How do other countries not in Europe cope 🙄
 

 

5 minutes ago, royal white said:

So are you suggesting  if we left the ECHR child abuse would rise (it already is massively) elections would stop, torture would be a thing……. In fact what’s their achievement in prevention of torture? Genuinely interested. 

How do other countries not in Europe cope 🙄
 

 

I find that hard to predict. Yes horrible things still happen. Thats not evidence to leave the ECHR, it can be part of it the solution. More successes than failures for me.

There have been several cases where the Court has protected and even advanced human rights in the UK.

Freedom of expression for the press comes from a case known as Sunday Times from 1979.

The decriminalisation of homosexual acts in Northern Ireland came about thanks to a case called Dudgeon from 1981.

A case called Smith and Grady made clear that banning LGBT+ people from serving in the Armed Forces breaches human rights.

A Liberty case known as Eweida, said the State has to make sure private companies respect the religious freedom of their employees.

A case called Goodwin made clear the State has a duty to provide disabled people with appropriate care.

1 minute ago, London Wanderer said:

I find that hard to predict. Yes horrible things still happen. Thats not evidence to leave the ECHR, it can be part of it the solution. More successes than failures for me.

There have been several cases where the Court has protected and even advanced human rights in the UK.

Freedom of expression for the press comes from a case known as Sunday Times from 1979.

The decriminalisation of homosexual acts in Northern Ireland came about thanks to a case called Dudgeon from 1981.

A case called Smith and Grady made clear that banning LGBT+ people from serving in the Armed Forces breaches human rights.

A Liberty case known as Eweida, said the State has to make sure private companies respect the religious freedom of their employees.

A case called Goodwin made clear the State has a duty to provide disabled people with appropriate care.

I think the majority of the points being brought up are the same in most civilised countries. 

9 hours ago, royal white said:

I think the majority of the points being brought up are the same in most civilised countries. 

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/02/13/us/stonewall-inn-national-monument-transgender
 

54 minutes ago, London Wanderer said:

https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2025/02/13/us/stonewall-inn-national-monument-transgender
 

we are talking about civilised countries

Sigh

She tried and failed eight times

Then she dishonestly joins an organisation branded a terrorist organisation in Nigeria specifically to aid her case against deportation

The judge acknowledges the above but she's granted a right to remain regardless

 

Yeah but it's in the telegraph so doesn't count.

5 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

Sigh

She tried and failed eight times

Then she dishonestly joins an organisation branded a terrorist organisation in Nigeria specifically to aid her case against deportation

The judge acknowledges the above but she's granted a right to remain regardless

 

Makes my blood boil - the constant flow of cases such as this.  As posted on the Germany thread wrt the failed Afghan asylum seeker, Western governments have got to clamp down on this stuff really quickly in anyway which way they can.  Track record in doing this is abysmal of course but the clock is ticking faster now.  Again, if not even more “normal folk” will (understandably) think the only option is to vote for extremist, populist parties. And I wouldn’t blame them. A road to oblivion though and the breakdown of what should be a cohesive, multicultural, secular society and all the genuine benefits that brings.

These human rights leach lawyers dont  help the cause.

We are soft as shite.

I don't get it though

to put it simply

you have to be pretty smart to become a judge

but it feels like they keep getting tricked 

and are the lawyers on a no win no fee basis or something

the cases they come up with are rididculous

but they work

it's fucking strange and feels like something amiss is going on

 

7 minutes ago, Zico said:

I don't get it though

to put it simply

you have to be pretty smart to become a judge

but it feels like they keep getting tricked 

and are the lawyers on a no win no fee basis or something

the cases they come up with are rididculous

but they work

it's fucking strange and feels like something amiss is going on

 

People willing to cheat the system, Judges having their hands tied. 

Not just in this country either, its the western world..

Started having murderers getting away with minimum sentences on mental health grounds, absolute farce. 

15 minutes ago, gonzo said:

Yeah but it's in the telegraph so doesn't count.

Where has this bollocks come from? Nobody has ever said that on here. Posting articles that contain actual facts with researched sources is obviously fine. It's when someone reposts someone's twitter opinion, or an article containing blatant lies, that they are rightly mocked.

16 minutes ago, Zico said:

I don't get it though

to put it simply

you have to be pretty smart to become a judge

but it feels like they keep getting tricked 

and are the lawyers on a no win no fee basis or something

the cases they come up with are rididculous

but they work

it's fucking strange and feels like something amiss is going on

 

The 'something amiss' is that some of the fuckers are out of touch with the real world and off with the fairies. There has been a litany of madcap judgements over the last few years almost certainly fuelled to an extent by the rise of woke.

Hopefully these judgements will recede dramatically when woke is finally and unmercifully euthanased.

Edited February 14, 20251 yr by bolty58

6 minutes ago, bolty58 said:

The 'something amiss' is that some of the fuckers are out of touch with the real world and off with the fairies. There has been a litany of madcap judgements over the last few years almost certainly fuelled to an exttent by the rise of woke.

Hopefully these judgements will recede dramatically when woke is finally and unmercifully euthanased.

I agree there are seemingly crazy decisions made by the legal system either judges or courts and even agree the ‘woke’ approach will have fuelled some of these but there have been strange decisions made for years and years by judges that are removed from the real world.

An obvious example is the disparity in sentencing when an act of disorder is related to football rather than a pissed up Saturday night. 
 

What has grown is the ‘no win no fee’ type of law where lawyers are basically looking for loop holes in legislation to not lose cases. This has always happened but with the increasing complexity and worldwide nature of cases means the legislation has to cover so much the chances of gaps are more frequent and more exploited 

Talk of opting out of the ECHR is not the right option . What do you replace it with ? And who is going to draft all these new laws ? The very judges and legal experts we all criticise. 

Edited February 14, 20251 yr by Ani

Judges aren't necessarily having their hands tied.

In these cases they're simply making ridiculous interpretations of the law.

If that requires tightening up the law, then so be it, but that does then restrict what a judge can do. 

As an aside, a convicted paedophile had applied to open a kid's home.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cn93722e3jro