Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2017 9:55:50 GMT 7
Great author, far ahead of his time. Animal Farm still sticks in my mind 45 years after first reading it at High School.
We, the supposedly intelligent species, have not wrapped our stupid heads around the "balance" thing, as the rest of Nature has. For some reason whoever ? created us forgot to install that app. Hence we have good people fighting bad people, smart people fighting idiots, and considerate members of our population having to tolerate inconsiderate prix.
Everyone (almost anyway) wants what is good for them and fork everyone else. Next time some poor bugger has a road accident in front of you take notice of how many people stop to help and how many beep their horns because they are being "held up". This is a perfect example of what is going on in world in general and applies to human rights, religious freedom, where people are able to live etc etc.
Recently my wife and I were heading home from my acupuncture appointment and some poor guy in an old pickup was hit by a new looking Vigo, the old dude was ok but the young boy in the front with him was dazed and bleeding from a nasty head injury. My wife jumped out of the car to offer assistance, gave them a pack of Baby Wipes and tissue and asked if they wanted her to ring the ambulance (guy who hit him was already ringing) Meanwhile this asswipe who was behind our car was madly beeping on the horn for us to get out of his way, even though he could see what was going on.
Classic example of what is going on in the world today. Some people are just "jai dum". Get rid of them, or give them electric shock treatment, and the world would be a better place.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2017 11:10:24 GMT 7
Re the "failure to prove nationality," meme. It's time to enact an agreement with someone like Uganda and remove all of these people to a third party country. Cheaper would be to transport them to some remote, uninhabited Scottish island with no communication links. It would, of course, violate their human rights, but they'd hardly be in a position to stake a claim. We could be inhumane and send them to your house.
|
|
siampolee
Detective
Alive alive O
Posts: 14,104
Likes: 8,932
Member is Online
|
Post by siampolee on Apr 12, 2017 13:45:39 GMT 7
Labour governments from 1964 -1970 and then 1974-19760. Wilson and Callaghan
The Heath government from, 1970-1974 didn't enact any H R laws etc.
Then the traitorious seditious Tony Bliar Milliband Jew boys and Black Adder Abbot as Corbyn and the loony left shafted her and the countrty as they sold the U K and its citizens down the river with their mock pseudo socialist rhetoric and ideals as they laid their personal plans for their political and financial futures.
|
|
rubl
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
The wondering type
Posts: 23,596
Likes: 8,954
|
Post by rubl on Apr 12, 2017 14:29:58 GMT 7
More interesting is the sneaky attack on the judiciary, by breitbart "Right-wing website Breitbart reported that this was not the first time Justice Mott had compensated foreign criminals." What they insinuate borders defamation. What they didn't like to say is that the judge applied the law which defines certain compensations. These laws accepted and voted in by politicians who are voting in by the British public. Wrong, we never voted for the Human Rights Act. Make the next referendum that. I would assume there're mayby more laws the politicians handled for the electorate without the electorate 'getting' a chance to vote for each and every law, new or only amended. Maybe PM May will let you vote on the big law move she's planning. BTW "The Human Rights Act 1998 (c42) is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which received Royal Assent on 9 November 1998, and mostly came into force on 2 October 2000.[1] Its aim was to incorporate into UK law the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Act makes a remedy for breach of a Convention right available in UK courts, without the need to go to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2017 14:33:15 GMT 7
Wrong, we never voted for the Human Rights Act. Make the next referendum that. I would assume there're mayby more laws the politicians handled for the electorate without the electorate 'getting' a chance to vote for each and every law, new or only amended. Maybe PM May will let you vote on the big law move she's planning. BTW "The Human Rights Act 1998 (c42) is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which received Royal Assent on 9 November 1998, and mostly came into force on 2 October 2000.[1] Its aim was to incorporate into UK law the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Act makes a remedy for breach of a Convention right available in UK courts, without the need to go to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998If we wanted European law we would have capitulated to the Germans the same way your mob and the French did in WW2.
|
|
me
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 6,342
Likes: 3,980
|
Post by me on Apr 12, 2017 15:03:02 GMT 7
I would assume there're mayby more laws the politicians handled for the electorate without the electorate 'getting' a chance to vote for each and every law, new or only amended. Maybe PM May will let you vote on the big law move she's planning. BTW "The Human Rights Act 1998 (c42) is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which received Royal Assent on 9 November 1998, and mostly came into force on 2 October 2000.[1] Its aim was to incorporate into UK law the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Act makes a remedy for breach of a Convention right available in UK courts, without the need to go to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998If we wanted European law we would have capitulated to the Germans the same way your mob and the French did in WW2. So you would not be in favour of Scotland rejoining the EU if it leaves with England I presume.
|
|
siampolee
Detective
Alive alive O
Posts: 14,104
Likes: 8,932
Member is Online
|
Post by siampolee on Apr 12, 2017 15:23:45 GMT 7
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2017 15:46:31 GMT 7
Cheaper would be to transport them to some remote, uninhabited Scottish island with no communication links. It would, of course, violate their human rights, but they'd hardly be in a position to stake a claim. We could be inhumane and send them to your house. Just sprayed XXXX all over my laptop ! Oh, the humanity !
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2017 16:13:34 GMT 7
If we wanted European law we would have capitulated to the Germans the same way your mob and the French did in WW2. So you would not be in favour of Scotland rejoining the EU if it leaves with England I presume. There is no obligation to my knowledge to take on the Human Rights Act as part of EU membership.
|
|
me
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
Posts: 6,342
Likes: 3,980
|
Post by me on Apr 12, 2017 17:27:24 GMT 7
So you would not be in favour of Scotland rejoining the EU if it leaves with England I presume. There is no obligation to my knowledge to take on the Human Rights Act as part of EU membership. The alternative I believe is that the EU courts become the judiciary in such cases. That is why they did the UK one, to retain some powers for the UK.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2017 17:38:55 GMT 7
There is no obligation to my knowledge to take on the Human Rights Act as part of EU membership. The alternative I believe is that the EU courts become the judiciary in such cases. That is why they did the UK one, to retain some powers for the UK. Two different things - membership if the EU means mandatory European Court of Justice, I don't believe the HRADEC is mandatory. It's the HRA that caused Brexit more than the ECJ.
|
|
rubl
Crazy Mango Extraordinaire
The wondering type
Posts: 23,596
Likes: 8,954
|
Post by rubl on Apr 12, 2017 17:45:34 GMT 7
I would assume there're mayby more laws the politicians handled for the electorate without the electorate 'getting' a chance to vote for each and every law, new or only amended. Maybe PM May will let you vote on the big law move she's planning. BTW "The Human Rights Act 1998 (c42) is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which received Royal Assent on 9 November 1998, and mostly came into force on 2 October 2000.[1] Its aim was to incorporate into UK law the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Act makes a remedy for breach of a Convention right available in UK courts, without the need to go to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998If we wanted European law we would have capitulated to the Germans the same way your mob and the French did in WW2. Nice distraction, but fact remains the politicians the Brits elected over and over again just sold them down the road. At least that's the impression I get from comments here. Makes one wonder about how serious Brits are when voting, or if they even know what they vote for. BTW PM May seems to argue she can do the 'culling' in the Great Repeal Bill on her own, no need for parliament or (God forbid) the public to interfere. "The government insists this power will only be used for minor tweaks: for example, some of the laws in question might refer to a specific EU regulator that Britain has decided to leave. In that case, the law would need to be changed to refer to a British regulator. The government argues that allowing full parliamentary scrutiny of all of these changes would be unnecessary and would take too long." www.newsweek.com/brexit-great-repeal-bill-explained-david-davis-eu-law-uk-law-576652"Brexit minister David Davis fended off accusations that the government was using the two-year process to reshape the EU laws which have been passed in the previous 44 years without the proper parliamentary scrutiny. "The bill will convert EU law into United Kingdom law, allowing businesses to continue operating knowing the rules have not changed overnight, and providing fairness to individuals, whose rights and obligations will not be subject to sudden change," Davis told parliament on Thursday. " www.dw.com/en/britain-sets-out-great-repeal-bill-plan-to-transform-thousands-of-eu-laws/a-38219617PS Brits don't need fundamental rights described in law, they like to muddle along, more fun. "While making clear that there are "no plans" to pull the UK out of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Government's White Paper stated that the EU's Charter of Fundamental Rights will not be converted into UK law." www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/30/great-repeal-bill-government-begins-process-take-power-back/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2017 18:01:03 GMT 7
In my opinion, the Human Rights Act is next for UKIP. And I would support them.
|
|
|
Post by rgs2001uk on Apr 12, 2017 21:09:09 GMT 7
Cheaper would be to transport them to some remote, uninhabited Scottish island with no communication links. It would, of course, violate their human rights, but they'd hardly be in a position to stake a claim. We could be inhumane and send them to your house. We could do the humane thing and send to Uncen Rub or Micks house.
|
|
|
Post by rgs2001uk on Apr 12, 2017 21:13:44 GMT 7
|
|