Politics General Election 2017

[old.user4556]

These are the best posts since Catsby and Toht.

 

[Bodhi]

You must think of yourself as some sort of comedian. Let me tell you, I have been on this forum longer than you, and replies like yours are very typical to posts of mine. So, rather than see your post as a glibly humorous derision of my personality, as I am sure you are trying to portray it as, I see it for what it is; a spasm of evasive twaddle that attempts to conceal your vast ignorance. In that respect, you are no different to the majority of other forum members. Run along now.

Um, I joined this forum in 2003, your profile suggests you joined in 2012. I'm guessing maths isn't your strong point?

 

[Raven]

That's an awful lot of incoherent nonsense to bother posting, just before flouncing off.

 

[Tom]

Hawkwind. You, and I imagine the majority of those who voted for Brexit, are divorced from reality. What an utterly contemptible post.



This is because you dislike the truth. You cannot bear the thought that your problems are caused by YOUR OWN government, who YOU elected, and not some 'Johnny-foreigner' in Brussels. You are too proud to admit that Brexit will be an economic disaster for the UK. You read trash newspapers, are fed lies about immigrants (and the EU's part in immigration) and it gives you a scapegoat. A scapegoat onto which you can project your own insecurities, your bilious hostility at a globalising world, your frustration at the state of your own country. And yet you have been fooled once again, fooled to place the blame of all your ills on anyone but yourself, your own choices, your own country. To vote for Brexit out of petulance. How sad.



You clearly know nothing about French politics.



Your little disclaimer about being 'pro-European' does not detract from the absurdity of what you write. What aspects of the EU's 'interference', if you can call it that, has had a negative impact on the British people? Workers rights, holiday pay and many other safeguards that you evidently take for granted have come from the EU. And your wish to abolish human rights? What a despicable thing to say.

I am not trying to shame anyone. You have done an admirable job of shaming and humiliating yourself. You have turned your back on friends, economic security and solidarity in exchange for fallacious dreams of a Colonial Britain, a time-warped, mutated vision of a past that never was. To willingly embrace the quixotic bitterness of regression rather than progress with humility, as part of something greater ... It is risible.

Let me tell you this. Perhaps you are not mature or old enough to understand it, but I think it is a lesson in life that you need to know, and I hope you will look back on this with fondness. Not everyone's opinion is equal. I am a well learned man. I have read the works of Cicero and Hobbes this week alone. I am inquisitive. I am fiercely intelligent. I believe in scrutiny and scepticism. I read extensively on the subject of Brexit, including papers from peer-reviewed scientific journals. I came to the conclusion that it was a bad decision. I am not even British. Did you give as much thought into your own vote?

I am sorry if I offend you, but actually I find your post deeply offensive. This lack of knowledge and celebration of ignorance is unforgivable, especially in times like these.

I despair. I really do. Please do not bother replying, I have no desire to argue further. Goodbye.

/r/Iamverysmart

 

[BloodOmen]

How To Vote To Stop The Tories

It's now a website \o/

 

[Hawkwind]

Hawkwind. You, and I imagine the majority of those who voted for Brexit, are divorced from reality. What an utterly contemptible post.

No, I don't people had their own reasons for their vote. It's a democracy and although I don't agree with the outcome I accept it.

lol droning + You clearly know nothing about French politics.

Sorry did Le Pen not come second in Round 2 and get 7.7M votes! Says to me there are a lot of unhappy anti EU/Immigration people in France. I am also well aware she will not win.

Hawkwind. You, and I imagine the majority of those who voted for Brexit, are divorced from reality. What an utterly contemptible post.

No, I don't. People had their own reasons for their vote. It's a democracy and although I don't agree with the outcome I accept it.

And your wish to abolish human rights? What a despicable thing to say.

Learn to read! Odd that you consider yourself an intellect yet can't grasp basic comprehension skills. It was not what I stated! I stated that they need to TONE DOWN some of the HR laws which are being abused.

More pathetic trolling. Plus this little gem - Not everyone's opinion is equal. I am a well learned man

LOL sums you up perfectly! Likely also that vain enough to believe that a compliment. It's Everyone's right to have an opinion. You may not agree with it but that does not diminish their right to have it. The mind of the church was once considered the height of human intellect. They also thought the world was flat and that our planet was the center of the universe. Any other opinion was heresy. Pretty much like you, only your opinion counts!

I read extensively on the subject of Brexit, including papers from peer-reviewed scientific journals. I came to the conclusion that it was a bad decision. I am not even British. Did you give as much thought into your own vote?

I am sure many on this forum did the same, read a lot of background information, and thought Brexit was a bad idea on economic grounds alone.

I am sorry if I offend you, but actually I find your post deeply offensive. This lack of knowledge and celebration of ignorance is unforgivable, especially in times like these.

I don't offend easily, I am not child. I do have a 16 year old one though. Amazing that you share the typical male, hormone induced, teenage trait of lashing out and being utterly offensive when questioned about something they don't like.

Goodbye.

We can but hope!

 

[old.user4556]

No, I don't people had their own reasons for their vote. It's a democracy and although I don't agree with the outcome I accept it.




Sorry did Le Pen not come second in Round 2 and get 7.7M votes! Says to me there are a lot of unhappy anti EU/Immigration people in France. I am also well aware she will not win.



No, I don't. People had their own reasons for their vote. It's a democracy and although I don't agree with the outcome I accept it.



Learn to read! Odd that you consider yourself an intellect yet can't grasp basic comprehension skills. It was not what I stated! I stated that they need to TONE DOWN some of the HR laws which are being abused.



LOL sums you up perfectly! Likely also that vain enough to believe that a compliment. It's Everyone's right to have an opinion. You may not agree with it but that does not diminish their right to have it. The mind of the church was once considered the height of human intellect. They also thought the world was flat and that our planet was the center of the universe. Any other opinion was heresy. Pretty much like you, only your opinion counts!



I am sure many on this forum did the same, read a lot of background information, and thought Brexit was a bad idea on economic grounds alone.



I don't offend easily, I am not child. I do have a 16 year old one though. Amazing that you share the typical male, hormone induced, teenage trait of lashing out and being utterly offensive when questioned about something they don't like.


We can but hope!

Dude, honestly, ignore this muppet.

 

[Scouse]

ECHR isn't being abused by anyone but government and press. Other than that it's doing a sterling job IMO. The press don't report on all the things it does for us.

By it's very nature the critics only pick the outlier cases. But in a system like this there are always going to be outlier cases. Any watering down means a weakening of protections for all of us. In fact, if anything I'd argue that it needs to be strengthened - temporary derogations at times of war have encouraged this government to attempt piss-taking weakening of necessary protections of the innocent.

 

[Job]

We put a lot of it together and as I have said soooo many times before, it looks great on paper, but the reality is its purpose is distorted beyond recognition..it protects no one who needs it and simply serves as a rulebook for the loophole.
You only get the protection it offers if your case will further the agenda.

 

[bainteor]

@Hawkwind, I accept your opinion, although I vehemently disagree with it. Thank you for at least attempting to have a discussion with me unlike most of the people here. Goodbye and take care.

 

[Scouse]

the reality is its purpose is distorted beyond recognition..it protects no one who needs it and simply serves as a rulebook for the loophole.

Bullshit. there's loads of examples where the ECHR has done fantastic work for Britain and Britons as a whole (and they've been given). You're just pissed off because of the odd abu-hamza type. You'd love summary judgement on muslims (and people you hate generally). But ECHR is rough-with-smooth or not-at-all...

 

[Job]

No..I'm pissed off because it only gets dragged out for high profile cases, where it can be used to distort a contained issue.
It does nothing for innocent people we bomb the shit out of to get one guy..it doesn't stop us selling arms to countries that are doing that..it doesnt help people who's lives are made a misery by immigrant ghettos or gypsy camps..its a bullshit badge of honour, that addresses issues allready dealt with by law.

 

[Scouse]

.I'm pissed off because it only gets dragged out for high profile cases

So, basically you're ignorant (surprise). It's used constantly for lots of obscure stuff you wouldn't even think helps anyone. Not high profile stuff at all - but if you want high profile that isn't about a muslim and affect us all - how about air pollution. Our government is getting a kicking over air pollution that it doesn't want to fix, that's killing people and harming the health of 60% of the UK population, from laws drafted by the British (the European Convention on Human rights was drafted under the auspices of the British working under people who'd just been through a fucking big war, so they knew exactly what they were talking about) to protect people from idiot wanker governments. And it's protecting us from OUR idiot wanker governments (both labour and conservative who've been trying to fuck us over in myriad ways for a long time).

But you see the daily fail cases of abu Hamza and the likes. Yours is an emotional reaction based on how you feel rather than any rational appreciation of what the law does for all of us.

But hey. That doesn't really matter. I'll post a comical video that does a poor job of explaining it's reach and a very poor job of detailing the low-profile cases that the ECHR deals with. But rest assured - weaken it and thousands suffer. And all so the odd hook-handed muslim hate-preacher who's not really achieving anything anyway can get shat on harder.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptfmAY6M6aA

 

[Gumbo]

How To Vote To Stop The Tories

It's now a website \o/

That's cute but it assumes that people who are so disengaged with politics will take the time to research who they could best vote for to enact a change which they couldn't be arsed to influence before.

I don't see it making a great deal of difference.

 

[Job]

Human rights for air pollution is just another example of its poster child status...'lets try using human rights', all ready a ton of legislation and rather than bolster that, they are pulling out the human rights card.
It was written by lawyers..for lawyers and enjoys a higher profile..which says everything about the bullshit of justice...

 

[BloodOmen]

That's cute but it assumes that people who are so disengaged with politics will take the time to research who they could best vote for to enact a change which they couldn't be arsed to influence before.

I don't see it making a great deal of difference.

Probably not, I'd wager a few thousand may use it though.

 

[Scouse]

You don't think clean air that doesn't kill or harm health should be a human right?

Wow.

 

[Raven]

Reading some of the pro-corbyn nonsense is proper funny.

 

[Hawkwind]

You don't think clean air that doesn't kill or harm health should be a human right?

Wow.

I think the point is there were already standards and laws governing it, ECHR adding further laws is just money in lawyers pockets. At least that's what I got from it

I doubt anyone would argue scrapping the entire ECHR, just that some laws are being abused and Brussels won't change them. So UK should be able to or at least bypass in extreme cases. Not every law works in every country. Take the case of a gypsy family who built a two story home they had no rights and no permission to build, in the New Forest on protected land. Council found out, went to court got an injunction and an order to demolish it. Guess what, the gypsy builder sets fire to his caravan and moved the family into the unfinished house, did not even have a roof on at the time if I remember correctly. Then used the Human Rights laws to keep the property intact as his only home without anywhere to live. The council were told to evict and demolish his property would contravene his HR's. Wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds (tax $) fighting a case to get them out.

Surely you can see that in "some" cases it needs to change locally for such odd and extreme cases. How it stands now nothing can be done. ECHR overalls all and the lawyers love it.

Not saying it should be got rid of and totally agree it has done a lot of good. Although taking credit for anti slavery rules in the vid is a bit rich

 

[DaGaffer]

Surely you can see that in "some" cases it needs to change locally for such odd and extreme cases. How it stands now nothing can be done. ECHR overalls all and the lawyers love it.

Local changes for "odd and extreme" cases is the very definition of slippery slope. Every nationalist/religionist can use that to create "unique" exemptions. In the UK the ECHR is used to amend case law, and is doing its job. The fact that clever lawyers are finding ways to exploit it doesn't mean you throw the whole thing out; the net benefit far outweighs the Daily Mail baiting cases.

NB. Link for that traveller story?

 

[Gwadien]

I think the point is there were already standards and laws governing it, ECHR adding further laws is just money in lawyers pockets. At least that's what I got from it

I doubt anyone would argue scrapping the entire ECHR, just that some laws are being abused and Brussels won't change them. So UK should be able to or at least bypass in extreme cases. Not every law works in every country. Take the case of a gypsy family who built a two story home they had no rights and no permission to build, in the New Forest on protected land. Council found out, went to court got an injunction and an order to demolish it. Guess what, the gypsy builder sets fire to his caravan and moved the family into the unfinished house, did not even have a roof on at the time if I remember correctly. Then used the Human Rights laws to keep the property intact as his only home without anywhere to live. The council were told to evict and demolish his property would contravene his HR's. Wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds (tax $) fighting a case to get them out.

Surely you can see that in "some" cases it needs to change locally for such odd and extreme cases. How it stands now nothing can be done. ECHR overalls all and the lawyers love it.

Not saying it should be got rid of and totally agree it has done a lot of good. Although taking credit for anti slavery rules in the vid is a bit rich

Not really sure how you can have the audacity to talk about human rights living in UAE tbh.

Sure, I know that things won't be as bad as the middle east if we didn't have access to the ECHR, but Human Rights are there to protect the common working person, it doesn't benefit the wealthy, at all. In fact, quite the opposite.

As @DaGaffer said, everything is open to abuse, but I'd rather have abuses of systems such as that rather than a system where you'll have families on the streets because they fail to pay their rent for a month, so landlords would be able to turf them out without opposition. Let's face it, that's the first thing that would come into effect; landlords are already upset about the fact they can't do what ever the fuck they like with their property.

This forum has become very much a middle-class cesspit of self interest, the only person who seems to be able to properly understand both sides of the argument and have a degree of sympathy is @DaGaffer

 

[Raven]

Power to the people!

 

[Raven]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3KlASxNooXc

 

[Scouse]

You're concentrating on outliers @Hawkwind. In the vast vast majority of cases the ECHR works exactly as it should (not by adding "further laws" as you said - but by being a clarifying base ruleset framework).

You *cannot* selectively weaken it in response to "extreme" cases without breaking the whole thing. And as I've said - it could do with strengthening, not watering down. It's in all our interests for that to happen. Despite some incredibly tiny threat of terrorism occurring within 50 miles of us or not...


Edit: Dislike what you're mistakenly saying there @Raven - but I watched that episode tonight with my tea

 

[Hawkwind]

Not really sure how you can have the audacity to talk about human rights living in UAE tbh.

Sure, I know that things won't be as bad as the middle east if we didn't have access to the ECHR, but Human Rights are there to protect the common working person, it doesn't benefit the wealthy, at all. In fact, quite the opposite.

As @DaGaffer said, everything is open to abuse, but I'd rather have abuses of systems such as that rather than a system where you'll have families on the streets because they fail to pay their rent for a month, so landlords would be able to turf them out without opposition. Let's face it, that's the first thing that would come into effect; landlords are already upset about the fact they can't do what ever the fuck they like with their property.

This forum has become very much a middle-class cesspit of self interest, the only person who seems to be able to properly understand both sides of the argument and have a degree of sympathy is @DaGaffer

I'm British on a temporary working VISA, UK is legally my "normal country of residence" due to the temporary status. Why am I not allowed to have an opinion on UK matters? I even have a house in UK and pay tax in the UK.

I don't want the ECHR to go and understand the good it does, I think that was clear. But, in cases such as the one I mentioned lawyers are abusing HR law and the UK Courts have no recourse by to comply, no matter how stupid it is.

 

[Hawkwind]

You're concentrating on outliers @Hawkwind. In the vast vast majority of cases the ECHR works exactly as it should (not by adding "further laws" as you said - but by being a clarifying base ruleset framework).

I know and I pretty much stated that. The more absurd cases where HR lawyers are using the ECHR to abuse and befuddle what is essentially an open and shut logical case. Give us a mechanism to fight that at a realistic cost and I would be perfectly happy. The mechanism in place failed twice in the case stated, tax payers money down the drain. Utterly absurd case and if ECHR Courts can't address it then then where is the solution.

 

[Hawkwind]

the UK Courts have no recourse by to comply, no matter how stupid it is.

typo...but to comply...

Too early and I'm on a call with US only half concentrating on what I writing

 

[DaGaffer]

I know and I pretty much stated that. The more absurd cases where HR lawyers are using the ECHR to abuse and befuddle what is essentially an open and shut logical case. Give us a mechanism to fight that at a realistic cost and I would be perfectly happy. The mechanism in place failed twice in the case stated, tax payers money down the drain. Utterly absurd case and if ECHR Courts can't address it then then where is the solution.

The amount of tax payers' money directly spent on losing ECHR cases is trivial Human rights cases in Europe have cost Britain more than £4m, mainly because, we have a Human Rights Act of our own. Most cases that the press moan about as imposition from Strasbourg are nothing of the sort because they're being tried in British courts; very few (since 1998) have to get kicked up to Europe. £4M is fuck all.

The indirect costs of having to put in new processes to give people protections under the ECHR is much higher, but in most of these cases that's exactly as it should be; Britain (like most countries) is often Kafka-esque when it comes to dealing with the state, so things like the Data Protection Act and Freedom of Information Act, have all been informed by the HRA.

Finally, there is some accounting for local needs, The Court of Human Rights gives a ‘margin of appreciation’ to member states to allow for political and cultural variations between the 47 different countries that have signed up to the Convention on Human Rights. It’s also applied where the Court considers that national authorities are better placed to make assessments of proportionality about rights protection.

 

[Ormorof]

A quick glance at ECHR eebby shows its handling many cases at a time, @Job we just hear about the high profile ones (hence high profile)

For example recently there seems to have been a lot of cases looking at whether eastern european nations are enforcing the right to a fair trial

 

[Scouse]

Yip. Outlier cases are very few and far between. 'Mitigation' of this trivial number of outlier cases breaks it all. You have to take a little bit of rough with the smooth.

There's no problem with the ECHR that hasn't been drummed up by vested right-wing interests.