Today I'm angry about.....

[TANGODANCER]

Fantastic. They are going to make a whole generation of kids aware that racism exists in what they just thought were cartoons. They'll grow out of kids cartoons soon enough and most kids are growing up in a multi-national, live and let live and equality society.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-29427843" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Hoboh]

In the past three years, Russia has accounted for half the ECHR's right-to-life violations. The vast majority relate to the pre-2006 "active anti-terrorist phase" of the conflict in Chechnya: disappearances, torture, extrajudicial detention, excessive use of force.

Politically, these judgments are hard for the Kremlin to swallow, and it has sometimes simply refused to co-operate

So have the Russians been fined or Jailed? Have the hell, why can we simply not choose to ignore the ECHR over prisoners voting rights?

Of the 2,500-odd potentially admissible cases pending against the UK, she adds, nearly 2,300 concern prisoners' voting rights (the remainder mainly involve the undue retention of DNA samples and criminal records data, expulsion cases, notably to Iraq, and complaints about indeterminate sentences).

True, a relatively high proportion of UK applications are by people convicted of a crime

Says it all, the guilty trying to get 'rights to family lives'!

[Lord Kangana]

Do we have a jail big enough to jail the Russians?

I'm just trying to think from a practical stand point here.

[thebish]

So have the Russians been fined or Jailed? Have the hell, why can we simply not choose to ignore the ECHR over prisoners voting rights?

prisoners are prisoners because they have broken the law. You want the UK to break the law. So - presumably you'd then suspend all of the UK's voting rights?

[Gary the Enfield]

Do we have a jail big enough to jail the Russians?

I'm just trying to think from a practical stand point here.

Yes, Russia.

We could fence it off and just toss over the odd horse for food. And a cabbage.

[Hoboh]

So have the Russians been fined or Jailed? Have the hell, why can we simply not choose to ignore the ECHR over prisoners voting rights?

prisoners are prisoners because they have broken the law. You want the UK to break the law. So - presumably you'd then suspend all of the UK's voting rights?

We wouldn't need any 'voting rights in Europe' if I had my way

[Prufrock]

In the past three years, Russia has accounted for half the ECHR's right-to-life violations. The vast majority relate to the pre-2006 "active anti-terrorist phase" of the conflict in Chechnya: disappearances, torture, extrajudicial detention, excessive use of force.

Politically, these judgments are hard for the Kremlin to swallow, and it has sometimes simply refused to co-operate

So have the Russians been fined or Jailed? Have the hell, why can we simply not choose to ignore the ECHR over prisoners voting rights?

Of the 2,500-odd potentially admissible cases pending against the UK, she adds, nearly 2,300 concern prisoners' voting rights (the remainder mainly involve the undue retention of DNA samples and criminal records data, expulsion cases, notably to Iraq, and complaints about indeterminate sentences).

True, a relatively high proportion of UK applications are by people convicted of a crime

Says it all, the guilty trying to get 'rights to family lives'!

We can choose to. If you read the wording of the HRA I quoted a few pages ago, and the rest of the wording of the Act, you'll see that. Judges have to take decisions into account. Ministers can propose bills which are contrary to the HRA, but must simply say so before they do. We don't choose to do this very often, mainly because 'being like Vladimir Putin' is not something our leaders seem to be particularly keen on, for some reason.

And the guilty aren't trying to get rights to family lives. That's the point of Human Rights, they're inherent and automatic (though not all are absolute).

[Hoboh]

In the past three years, Russia has accounted for half the ECHR's right-to-life violations. The vast majority relate to the pre-2006 "active anti-terrorist phase" of the conflict in Chechnya: disappearances, torture, extrajudicial detention, excessive use of force.

Politically, these judgments are hard for the Kremlin to swallow, and it has sometimes simply refused to co-operate

So have the Russians been fined or Jailed? Have the hell, why can we simply not choose to ignore the ECHR over prisoners voting rights?

Of the 2,500-odd potentially admissible cases pending against the UK, she adds, nearly 2,300 concern prisoners' voting rights (the remainder mainly involve the undue retention of DNA samples and criminal records data, expulsion cases, notably to Iraq, and complaints about indeterminate sentences).

True, a relatively high proportion of UK applications are by people convicted of a crime

Says it all, the guilty trying to get 'rights to family lives'!

We can choose to. If you read the wording of the HRA I quoted a few pages ago, and the rest of the wording of the Act, you'll see that. Judges have to take decisions into account. Ministers can propose bills which are contrary to the HRA, but must simply say so before they do. We don't choose to do this very often, mainly because 'being like Vladimir Putin' is not something our leaders seem to be particularly keen on, for some reason.

And the guilty aren't trying to get rights to family lives. That's the point of Human Rights, they're inherent and automatic (though not all are absolute).

What is the point of a supreme court in the UK if it is not the end game to justice? Another waste of cash or jobs for the boys

[Bijou Bob]

It's yet another layer of justice where lawyers can run up enormous bills at public expense Hoboh. The greater the number of layers, the greater the inefficiency. More inefficiency leads to longer cases and more appeals, which leads to greater money making opportunities.

[Prufrock]

In the past three years, Russia has accounted for half the ECHR's right-to-life violations. The vast majority relate to the pre-2006 "active anti-terrorist phase" of the conflict in Chechnya: disappearances, torture, extrajudicial detention, excessive use of force.

Politically, these judgments are hard for the Kremlin to swallow, and it has sometimes simply refused to co-operate

So have the Russians been fined or Jailed? Have the hell, why can we simply not choose to ignore the ECHR over prisoners voting rights?

Of the 2,500-odd potentially admissible cases pending against the UK, she adds, nearly 2,300 concern prisoners' voting rights (the remainder mainly involve the undue retention of DNA samples and criminal records data, expulsion cases, notably to Iraq, and complaints about indeterminate sentences).

True, a relatively high proportion of UK applications are by people convicted of a crime

Says it all, the guilty trying to get 'rights to family lives'!

We can choose to. If you read the wording of the HRA I quoted a few pages ago, and the rest of the wording of the Act, you'll see that. Judges have to take decisions into account. Ministers can propose bills which are contrary to the HRA, but must simply say so before they do. We don't choose to do this very often, mainly because 'being like Vladimir Putin' is not something our leaders seem to be particularly keen on, for some reason.

And the guilty aren't trying to get rights to family lives. That's the point of Human Rights, they're inherent and automatic (though not all are absolute).

What is the point of a supreme court in the UK if it is not the end game to justice? Another waste of cash or jobs for the boys

I am running out of different ways to explain the same thing! The court is supreme. The only time the court listens to Europe or anywhere else is where parliament tells it to. In these cases it tells them they have to listen to the EU court and that they really should listen to the echr.

[Hoboh]

In the past three years, Russia has accounted for half the ECHR's right-to-life violations. The vast majority relate to the pre-2006 "active anti-terrorist phase" of the conflict in Chechnya: disappearances, torture, extrajudicial detention, excessive use of force.

Politically, these judgments are hard for the Kremlin to swallow, and it has sometimes simply refused to co-operate

So have the Russians been fined or Jailed? Have the hell, why can we simply not choose to ignore the ECHR over prisoners voting rights?

Of the 2,500-odd potentially admissible cases pending against the UK, she adds, nearly 2,300 concern prisoners' voting rights (the remainder mainly involve the undue retention of DNA samples and criminal records data, expulsion cases, notably to Iraq, and complaints about indeterminate sentences).

True, a relatively high proportion of UK applications are by people convicted of a crime

Says it all, the guilty trying to get 'rights to family lives'!

We can choose to. If you read the wording of the HRA I quoted a few pages ago, and the rest of the wording of the Act, you'll see that. Judges have to take decisions into account. Ministers can propose bills which are contrary to the HRA, but must simply say so before they do. We don't choose to do this very often, mainly because 'being like Vladimir Putin' is not something our leaders seem to be particularly keen on, for some reason.

And the guilty aren't trying to get rights to family lives. That's the point of Human Rights, they're inherent and automatic (though not all are absolute).

What is the point of a supreme court in the UK if it is not the end game to justice? Another waste of cash or jobs for the boys

I am running out of different ways to explain the same thing! The court is supreme. The only time the court listens to Europe or anywhere else is where parliament tells it to. In these cases it tells them they have to listen to the EU court and that they really should listen to the echr.

Crafty sod, you never say which Parliament or council of ministers

[Prufrock]

Our Parliament. At Westminster.

[Prufrock]

John Lydon and butter. Iggy Pop and car insurance. John Cooper Clarke and fecking micro chips!!

[TANGODANCER]

John Lydon and butter. Iggy Pop and car insurance. John Cooper Clarke and fecking micro chips!!

And Michael Parkinson pop-offs...

[Prufrock]

To be clear. Everyone likes to knock the lawyers and the judges, but they follow what Parliament says. There's plenty law that isn't made by Parliament, but that only remains the law so long as Parliament doesn't overrule it. It's a massive constitutional point that plenty don't seem to understand: This isn't America; if Congress passes a law, the US Supreme court can rule that law unconstitutional, and decide not to be bound by it. That cannot happen here.

The big distinction between the EU, and the ECHR in a legal context is that in the 1970s Parliament said we're bound by the EU (as was) and the decisions of that court. With the ECHR, our courts are bound to 'take it into account'. Which doesn't mean a lot when it comes down to it. Crucially, the reason we are bound by the ECA is only because Parliament says we are. Regardless of any referendum or anything else, if Parliament voted tomorrow to fcuk off the European Communities Act and the rest, it would be gone. Parliamentary supremacy is absolute. The example you are taught in law school is that Parliament could ban smoking on the streets of Paris. There are obvious practical problems, but in law it's true. Anything you can think of demanding tomorrow, Parliament could do, regardless of what Brussels said.

Politicians here, unlike in America, have no excuse. They make the rules, absolutely. Given the difficulties the ECA caused, when it came to passing the Human Rights Act, the language was deliberately softer. The courts only have to give effect to the ECHA as far as is possible. Our politicians have no excuse at all, regardless of how easy a target 'lawyers' are.

[Hoboh]

To be clear. Everyone likes to knock the lawyers and the judges, but they follow what Parliament says. There's plenty law that isn't made by Parliament, but that only remains the law so long as Parliament doesn't overrule it. It's a massive constitutional point that plenty don't seem to understand: This isn't America; if Congress passes a law, the US Supreme court can rule that law unconstitutional, and decide not to be bound by it. That cannot happen here.

The big distinction between the EU, and the ECHR in a legal context is that in the 1970s Parliament said we're bound by the EU (as was) and the decisions of that court. With the ECHR, our courts are bound to 'take it into account'. Which doesn't mean a lot when it comes down to it. Crucially, the reason we are bound by the ECA is only because Parliament says we are. Regardless of any referendum or anything else, if Parliament voted tomorrow to fcuk off the European Communities Act and the rest, it would be gone. Parliamentary supremacy is absolute. The example you are taught in law school is that Parliament could ban smoking on the streets of Paris. There are obvious practical problems, but in law it's true. Anything you can think of demanding tomorrow, Parliament could do, regardless of what Brussels said.

Politicians here, unlike in America, have no excuse. They make the rules, absolutely. Given the difficulties the ECA caused, when it came to passing the Human Rights Act, the language was deliberately softer. The courts only have to give effect to the ECHA as far as is possible. Our politicians have no excuse at all, regardless of how easy a target 'lawyers' are.

So lets be clear here;

It was Parliaments fault Qatada could not be deported all them years, nor could Hook be shipped off to the states and the cat was mouse catcher in the house of commons?

[Prufrock]

Yes. If they could get the votes, they could even have passed a specific 'Deport Abu Qatada Bill' if they'd wanted! There'd obviously be political consequences, like being kicked out of the EU or the European Convention, but don't let the f*ckers tell you they 'can't'. The only reason they can't is because they can't get the votes in the Houses of Parliament, or, I think more usually, because they don't actually believe the mad shit they come out with, they just know it'll make Hobohs vote for them without them having to actually do anything. 'Judges' fault, innit?'.

[Hoboh]

Yes. If they could get the votes, they could even have passed a specific 'Deport Abu Qatada Bill' if they'd wanted! There'd obviously be political consequences, like being kicked out of the EU or the European Convention, but don't let the f*ckers tell you they 'can't'. The only reason they can't is because they can't get the votes in the Houses of Parliament, or, I think more usually, because they don't actually believe the mad shit they come out with, they just know it'll make Hobohs vote for them without them having to actually do anything. 'Judges' fault, innit?'.

I find that really amusing being hoboh has only ever voted tory once in his entire life.

[Worthy4England]

Yes. If they could get the votes, they could even have passed a specific 'Deport Abu Qatada Bill' if they'd wanted! There'd obviously be political consequences, like being kicked out of the EU or the European Convention, but don't let the f*ckers tell you they 'can't'. The only reason they can't is because they can't get the votes in the Houses of Parliament, or, I think more usually, because they don't actually believe the mad shit they come out with, they just know it'll make Hobohs vote for them without them having to actually do anything. 'Judges' fault, innit?'.

I find that really amusing being hoboh has only ever voted tory once in his entire life.

I think Pru was suggesting any parliament/government rather than a specific one. But this doesn't surprise me.

The UK doesn't have to do anthing it doesn't want to. That might have consequences attached, but like Pru says, it's up to them (and by extension us, as we put them there).

Whilst not trying to digress, and understanding laws are passed by Parliament not the judiciary, many of the problems we see, especially on unintended consequences are down to drafting and interpretation, all of which is undertaken by the men in wigs.

[Prufrock]

Yes. If they could get the votes, they could even have passed a specific 'Deport Abu Qatada Bill' if they'd wanted! There'd obviously be political consequences, like being kicked out of the EU or the European Convention, but don't let the f*ckers tell you they 'can't'. The only reason they can't is because they can't get the votes in the Houses of Parliament, or, I think more usually, because they don't actually believe the mad shit they come out with, they just know it'll make Hobohs vote for them without them having to actually do anything. 'Judges' fault, innit?'.

I find that really amusing being hoboh has only ever voted tory once in his entire life.

I think Pru was suggesting any parliament/government rather than a specific one. But this doesn't surprise me.

The UK doesn't have to do anthing it doesn't want to. That might have consequences attached, but like Pru says, it's up to them (and by extension us, as we put them there).

Whilst not trying to digress, and understanding laws are passed by Parliament not the judiciary, many of the problems we see, especially on unintended consequences are down to drafting and interpretation, all of which is undertaken by the men in wigs.

Yep, any government that tries to throw crumbs to the right in the hope they might pick up some votes.

I'm not saying our judges never get things wrong, but most of the weird interpretations of statute come because one of the incorporating european Acts tells them they have to. The ECA tells them they *must* read UK law in line with EU law, which means you get weird situations where judges will add the word 'not' to statute passed by Parliament in order to make it mean the opposite of what it does. The HRA tells them they must as far as possible. This leads to some weird creativity but means they have to stop short of adding 'nots'.

I would certainly agree that there has been some interpretation of the ECHR which is broader than you might originally think it would be; however, this isn't a wholly modern development, and had been going on well before Labour in 97 swept to victory with a manifesto pledge to incorporate the ECHR into our laws.