Politics Election 2019

[Tom]

It's the usual bullshit - put the responsibility on the individual, rather than the companies who are in control. It's they who can make the biggest difference, not us.

 

[Trem]

And there was me thinking we already are with all these sewage releases:

Britons need to be ‘less squeamish’ about drinking water from sewage, says agency head

Environment Agency chief calls for new attitudes to conserve water and avoid droughts

www.theguardian.com

Like Tom said.

God forbid they'd spend money fixing the leaks, it's also fine for them to raise our bills yearly. But it's our fault for not drinking out of the toilet.

 

[Ormorof]

And there was me thinking we already are with all these sewage releases:

Britons need to be ‘less squeamish’ about drinking water from sewage, says agency head

Environment Agency chief calls for new attitudes to conserve water and avoid droughts

www.theguardian.com

I thought the water tasted a bit shite when I was over! 💩

 

[Scouse]

We lose 3 billion litres / day through leaky pipes in the UK.

With 70 million people that's 42+ litres per person per day - which is roughly about 1/3rd of our daily water use.

Considering humans should drink between 2.5 - 4 litres /day I really don't think we need to be drinking ass water.


We should immediately nationalise the water companies and then (because it always comes down to the public paying) fix our pipe and sewerage problems (which will mean VERY expensive water bills in the short term - like energy bill expensive). There is no other solution - so we should do it.

 

[Embattle]

Tory leadership: Liz Truss cancels BBC interview with Nick Robinson

Her team says she can no longer spare the time for the programme, according to the BBC.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Scouse]

Tory leadership: Liz Truss cancels BBC interview with Nick Robinson

Her team says she can no longer spare the time for the programme, according to the BBC.

www.bbc.co.uk

Already won - why bother giving a shit about the public knowing what she's about?

 

[Trem]

Johnson out again, in his hi-vis, giving thumbs up. Is there a bigger cunt alive (until Truss takes over)?

 

[Ormorof]

When do they actually make the decision? Do we have to put up with this faffing about much longer?

 

[Gwadien]

5th Sept

 

[Trem]

The EU putting a cap on energy it seems, gas price has dropped because they're intervening. Obviously that's simplified but when will the thick cunts realise leaving the EU is a bad thing?

 

[Scouse]

Take us out of the ECHR!!!

Conservationists seek judicial review of UK sewage discharge plan

Charity says strategy is unlawful and will allow storm overflows to dump raw sewage for next 28 years

www.theguardian.com

This is the sort of stuff that we "frivolously" use the ECHR for - and the reason the Tories want us out of it.

 

[Embattle]

The EU putting a cap on energy it seems, gas price has dropped because they're intervening. Obviously that's simplified but when will the thick cunts realise leaving the EU is a bad thing?

Technically it was more to do with German gas storage being ahead of schedule hence demand is about to tail off, especially at higher rates.

 

[Trem]

Technically it was more to do with German gas storage being ahead of schedule hence demand is about to tail off, especially at higher rates.

I know it centres around Germany. Either way.......what the fuck!

 

[Raven]

Take us out of the ECHR!!!

Conservationists seek judicial review of UK sewage discharge plan

Charity says strategy is unlawful and will allow storm overflows to dump raw sewage for next 28 years

www.theguardian.com

This is the sort of stuff that we "frivolously" use the ECHR for - and the reason the Tories want us out of it.

To be fair, this isn't within the remit of the ECHR and environmental policy certainly should be something, as an independent nation, we keep independence of. We should be doing better, we were already going above and beyond the EU standard while a member, and we can do better. Have you seen how much coal/gas Germany burns? The French and Spanish get proper bent out of shape if we suggest they stop bottom trawling, in our waters.

Not being a member will not stop us doing the right thing, the Tories will.

 

[Scouse]

To be fair, this isn't within the remit of the ECHR

Absolutely it is - it's a human right to have clean water, clean rivers, a clean environment.

We get taken out of the ECHR - a body we set up (a sovereign and totally voluntary choice) - then we lose a huge legal mechanism to challenge our government.

And that's the point - Labour will be nice and silent about it (because no government likes legal challenges to it's authority) - but removing us from this is a lose-lose. It's not a "loss of sovreignity" - it's a retrograde step from a lesser government who, in the face of economic challenges, are doing what they do - allowing the trashing of our environment for profit.

An older government wanted the UK population (after hundreds of thousands of deaths) to be able to hold the government to account - and more than that, European governments. So WE formed the ECHR. So backtracking when we don't like being held to standards we previously held and screaming "sovreignity" is a bullshit argument and shame on the UK public for falling for it.

 

[Raven]

Absolutely it is - it's a human right to have clean water, clean rivers, a clean environment.

We get taken out of the ECHR - a body we set up (a sovereign and totally voluntary choice) - then we lose a huge legal mechanism to challenge our government.

And that's the point - Labour will be nice and silent about it (because no government likes legal challenges to it's authority) - but removing us from this is a lose-lose. It's not a "loss of sovreignity" - it's a retrograde step from a lesser government who, in the face of economic challenges, are doing what they do - allowing the trashing of our environment for profit.

An older government wanted the UK population (after hundreds of thousands of deaths) to be able to hold the government to account - and more than that, European governments. So WE formed the ECHR. So backtracking when we don't like being held to standards we previously held and screaming "sovreignity" is a bullshit argument and shame on the UK public for falling for it.

Sorry, but that's straight up whataboutism. The ECHR have no jurisdiction over matters of the environment. While, yes, it could, *sort of* be argued that not dumping shit into the sea is a human right, it isn't, anywhere.

Edit, we are still in the ECHR btw, it's like Eurovision, EU membership is not related.

 

[Raven]

Topical

Fishermen begin legal campaign over dead shellfish

The fisherman fear the deaths were linked to the release of a chemical as a result of dredging.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Scouse]

Sorry, but that's straight up whataboutism

Point at the argument and show me the whataboutism please.

The ECHR have no jurisdiction over matters of the environment.

Not directly - but other rights it has direct jurisdiction over can be undermined if environmental protections are flouted - so it has a big part to play. (As has been seen - this isn't a theoretical discussion).

 

[Scouse]

Topical

Fishermen begin legal campaign over dead shellfish

The fisherman fear the deaths were linked to the release of a chemical as a result of dredging.

www.bbc.co.uk

Yeah - this is what @Tom brought up last year (or earlier this).

The science done was clearly woefully inadequate. But then the Tories absolutely slashed the Environment Agency budget. (I know someone very senior in it and in his words "we're practically useless now".)

 

[Raven]

Point at the argument and show me the whataboutism please.

Your rant about the ECHR, dumping shit in the sea is nothing to do with the ECHR*. The ECHR have about as much say in environmental policy as UEFA.

*which, we are still a member of

 

[Scouse]

The ECHR have about as much say in environmental policy as UEFA.

I explained the mechanism on how it does have a say in environmental policy. But hey ho.

 

[Raven]

I explained the mechanism on how it does have a say in environmental policy. But hey ho.

I am sure you can quote where you connected two completely unrelated things, as it's all on this page...because I can't see it.

 

[Raven]

Repeated facepalms isn't quoting where, in your handful of posts on the subject, you connected the two.

But if that's your argument...it's not very convincing.

 

[Scouse]

Repeated facepalms isn't quoting where, in your handful of posts on the subject, you connected the two.

But if that's your argument...it's not very convincing.

Look up about three fucking posts ffs. It's like having to spoon-feed a baby:

Not directly - but other rights it has direct jurisdiction over can be undermined if environmental protections are flouted - so it has a big part to play. (As has been seen - this isn't a theoretical discussion).

I'm not going to post rulings - it's utterly uncontroversial that the ECHR has had a lot to say about environmental laws because flouting environmental law undermines some of the fundamental principles the ECHR is there to protect. And the ECHR has been used a lot for that purpose - which is why the fucking Tories want us out of it.

Jeezus christ, every now and then you get your blinkers on and start arguing over stuff that's so normal and every-day that it boggles the mind. (And no, I'm not going to spoon feed you examples - they're myriad and easily searchable).

 

[Raven]

Look up about three fucking posts ffs. It's like having to spoon-feed a baby:

I'm not going to post rulings - it's utterly uncontroversial that the ECHR has had a lot to say about environmental laws because flouting environmental law undermines some of the fundamental principles the ECHR is there to protect. And the ECHR has been used a lot for that purpose - which is why the fucking Tories want us out of it.

Jeezus christ, every now and then you get your blinkers on and start arguing over stuff that's so normal and every-day that it boggles the mind. (And no, I'm not going to spoon feed you examples - they're myriad and easily searchable).

Yes, that was the bit where I said you were wrong. Just because in your head, something is a thing, doesn't make it so. Sources man.

The ECHR has nothing at all to do with the environment or government environmental policy, never has, never will.

Edit. And even if it did. We are still members of the ECHR, ffs.

 

[Scouse]

Yes, that was the bit where I said you were wrong. Just because in your head, something is a thing, doesn't make it so. Sources man.

The ECHR has nothing at all to do with the environment or government environmental policy, never has, never will

Look up your own wrongness please. I'm done talking to you about the well-known, well-posted-about obviousness

Edit: In fact- fuck you - have your cocking source you lazy shit

The European Court of Human Rights has so far ruled on some 300 environment-related cases, applying concepts such as the right to life, free speech and family life to a wide range of issues including pollution, man-made or natural disasters and access to environmental information.


The European Convention on Human Rights has also been used by campaigners at the national level to encourage governments to take further steps to tackle climate change and the degradation of the natural environment.

Twattttttttttt....

 

[Raven]

My dear, first you have to ascertain whether having seas without sewage, or any other pollutant is a human right, it isn't and never has been. We all do it, we shouldn't, but we do. It would actually fall under various environmental laws, which don't go far enough, still nothing to do with the ECHR but the EU and, in this case, the UK

Secondly, you might want to actually flick through some of the cases you are using as examples.

Such gems as HUDOC - European Court of Human Rights

Edit, link is shit, but its a dude complaining about a volcano.

 

[Scouse]

My link isn't shit.

Isn't it just easier to admit you're wrong when you're wrong?

 

[Raven]

Well, seeing as you're still talking nonsense, it's literally a link within the page you posted, one of your "300 environmental cases" - A guy shaking his fists at volcanos.

I think we will leave it there, as I am not that bothered whether you live in a dreamworld or not.

But, as we are still in the ECHR, I am sure there will be a case shortly...or not, because it's not their bag. The French are getting very upset about it (rightly so) so I am sure we will see something soon, won't we?

 

[Scouse]

one of your "300 environmental cases"

Not one of mine. One of the 300 environmental cases that the ECHR has ruled on. And considering you say the ECHR has nothing to do with the environment, that's pretty cut-and-dried.

And my original point is that the Tories want to take us out. Because it makes lots of things easier for them. I don't really understand why you don't say "oh, yeah, all that is true".

But then, you never have before, so why change now I guess.