Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

JohnM

Red Len ..strikes again?

52 posts in this topic

"I don't believe in my own policies but I expect everyone else to ..."

Was that Nick Clegg's Lib Dem leadership campaign slogan? It's no wonder he got beaten by the convicted liar and criminal Chris Huhne.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Was that Nick Clegg's Lib Dem leadership campaign slogan? It's no wonder he got beaten by the convicted liar and criminal Chris Huhne.

 

I didn't vote for him.  I may have voted for Huhne.  It's a genuine can't remember.  I was underwhelmed by the contest.

 

"I look a bit like a Blair/Cameron love child" was probably the slogan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Listening to Red Len on BBC Radio Five Live yesterday morning brought back memories of  Militant Tendency...something he supported in the 1980s.  The question is: is he right?

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/apr/24/ed-miliband-union-leader

 

No, he's quite clearly left. ;)

 

In many ways, by offering Ed Miliband the opportunity to slap him down in public, he is providing a valuable electoral service to the Labour Party by demonstrating that their leader is not as 'in hock' to the unions as their opponents would like everyone to believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we supposed to be surprised by that fact? :unsure:

no, nor surprised that no one else did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think he's right to some extent. I think the "Blairites" want to fight the 1997 election all over again, but this isn't the late nineties.

From an electoral point of view, Blairism was an attempt capture the middle ground. It worked, brilliantly so. But I think at the moment the problem isn't getting Tories and Lib Dems to vote Labour, it's getting non-voters to voting Labour.

From a policy perspective, I thought Blairism was too timid in 1997, and it's way too timid now. "Thatcherism with a human face" will not work now. That time is gone and things have moved on.

Milliband's in a bit of a tricky position in regards the Blairites. Keep them front and centre and it immediately winds up people like me, who should be natural Labour voters (as it is I tend to vote for them through gritted teeth) but sidelining them runs the risk of having people outside the tent peeing in.

 

I guess the solution is to keep them involved, but in some hidden, insignificant way. Don't know how you do that though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why have you linked to an article that has nothing do with human rights?

 

 

Because we have 18,000 foreign criminals in jail. When we try to send them back, we'll have 90% of them trying to claim a right to stay here under human rights legislation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IFrom a policy perspective, I thought Blairism was too timid in 1997, and it's way too timid now. "Thatcherism with a human face" will not work now. That time is gone and things have moved on.

 

Yes!  Labour must offer a radical alternative.  What's the point of being in power purely for the sake of being in power. The last government allowed the casino continue to operate as though nothing had happened - they just  used the proceeds differently.  When the crunch came as it was bound to sooner or later they were kicked out with very little done in terms of making ordinary voters' lives better long term.

The Tories have already extended the qualification period for unfair dismissal, shortened the notice period for redundancy, stopped legal aid in employment cases and are talking about no fault dismissal.  They are in the process of creating in people's minds a return to the deserving and undeserving poor.  Their welfare policies are already hitting the worst off after less than a month. There was an item on Radio Leeds yesterday about the doubling of use of food banks in Huddersfield.  They don't about why should Labour!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because we have 18,000 foreign criminals in jail. When we try to send them back, we'll have 90% of them trying to claim a right to stay here under human rights legislation.

That's not what your article says.

Have you got anything that backs up your point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you got anything that backs up your point?

 

No.If you're so concerned, you do the research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The convention on human rights is too important just to junk to get rid of 2 undesirables. If we're worried about falling foul of it maybe we should be asking why, and what other options are open to us that don't violate their human rights? Maybe we should obtain some evidence against them not based on torture? (which has always been known to produce dodgy results)

Neither is a British national and so don't have the "right" to be here. Therefore we would not be violating any rights by tossing them out.

 

British nationals have the right to be here and non-EU foreigners merely have the freedom to do so long as they have permission. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Millions.

 

His own rights included.

Nonsense.

 

The European Court of Human Rights is hardly the only body guaranteeing human rights in the UK. Leaving it would hardly cause the UK to become a totalitarian state with dissidents sent to the gulags. Which rights do you think we would lose by withdrawal? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neither is a British national and so don't have the "right" to be here. Therefore we would not be violating any rights by tossing them out.

 

British nationals have the right to be here and non-EU foreigners merely have the freedom to do so long as they have permission.

but likewise we have to kick them out for the right reasons, we can't just kick people we've allowed in out for no reason. And even more have to make sure that they aren't returning to unjust persecution. Our legal system doesn't allow evidence obtained through torture so its somewhat hypocritical for us to send someone to be tried on exactly that evidence. The new treaty if it can be proved enforceable, which would guaranty deportees protection from such evidence in a trial is a step I'm happy with.

The European convention on human rights is way too important for all our rights just to junk for this. Having not had a proper revolution and the chance to develop a constitution in this country most of our other rights come down from the magna carta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The European convention on human rights is way too important for all our rights just to junk for this. Having not had a proper revolution and the chance to develop a constitution in this country most of our other rights come down from the magna carta.

 

But ther'es no reason why we can't draft and implement equivalent legislation that applies to all British citizens in the UK. If the non-Britons don't like it, they can leave.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But ther'es no reason why we can't draft and implement equivalent legislation that applies to all British citizens in the UK. If the non-Britons don't like it, they can leave.

But you weren't originally saying you wanted to replace it, just scrap it. As was, as far as I can see Teresa May. Talk about sledge hammer to crack a nut.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but likewise we have to kick them out for the right reasons, we can't just kick people we've allowed in out for no reason. And even more have to make sure that they aren't returning to unjust persecution. Our legal system doesn't allow evidence obtained through torture so its somewhat hypocritical for us to send someone to be tried on exactly that evidence. The new treaty if it can be proved enforceable, which would guaranty deportees protection from such evidence in a trial is a step I'm happy with.

The European convention on human rights is way too important for all our rights just to junk for this. Having not had a proper revolution and the chance to develop a constitution in this country most of our other rights come down from the magna carta.

Not at all. We do not have to kick them out for the right reasons, we can kick them out for any reason at all. And frankly any persecution that the likes of abu Hamza, Qatada etc get is not "unjust". If you read the UN asylum laws, they specifically exempt people who are a danger to the host country from being eligible for asylum.

 

I don't care whether they drill his kneecaps or flay him alive. These things happen to lots of people in Jordan but we do nothing to prevent it. Now that Qatada is here suddenly this must not happen to him because for some undefined reason his well being is vitally important but other Jordanians' does not. 

 

I've not had answer to what British rights are safeguarded by the ECHR. If Qatada finally gets sent home then how does that damage the rights of Britons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But you weren't originally saying you wanted to replace it, just scrap it. As was, as far as I can see Teresa May. Talk about sledge hammer to crack a nut.

We already have laws in the UK to protect human rights. If we leave the EHCR, it's not like murder suddenly becomes legal.

 

What rights do we not already have under UK law that we should have?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We already have laws in the UK to protect human rights. If we leave the EHCR, it's not like murder suddenly becomes legal.

 

What rights do we not already have under UK law that we should have?

There are too many things to go in to detail but if you would like to read up on the subject here is the information you require.

http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/D5CC24A7-DC13-4318-B457-5C9014916D7A/0/Convention_ENG.pdf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We already have laws in the UK to protect human rights. If we leave the EHCR, it's not like murder suddenly becomes legal.

 

What rights do we not already have under UK law that we should have?

AHhh ok now I get your misunderstanding. Murder is a crime under law and is nothing to do with human rights. Think about it like this. Laws cover what you can't do, rights cover what you can do.

For example, everyone in the UK, on being tried for a crime has a right to a fair trial and a right to be tried by his peers if they choose. Rights tend to come from, not laws but conventions, constitutions, or some sort of charter. As I mentioned in my previous post, most of our rights in the UK, once you remove the ECHR come from the Magna Carta, I'm sure you'll agree that things have moved on since then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

AHhh ok now I get your misunderstanding. Murder is a crime under law and is nothing to do with human rights. Think about it like this. Laws cover what you can't do, rights cover what you can do.

For example, everyone in the UK, on being tried for a crime has a right to a fair trial and a right to be tried by his peers if they choose. Rights tend to come from, not laws but conventions, constitutions, or some sort of charter. As I mentioned in my previous post, most of our rights in the UK, once you remove the ECHR come from the Magna Carta, I'm sure you'll agree that things have moved on since then.

Laws also cover your rights, you have the right not to be murdered because there is a murder law. The right to vote is also covered by various Acts of Parliament as is your right to a fair trial (also habeus corpus).

 

We already have our rights safeguarded by our own laws. The ECHR gives us very little that we do not already have. We do not need it.

 

I'm not against a formal constitution that would put everything in layman's terms to make it easier to know our rights.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Laws also cover your rights, you have the right not to be murdered because there is a murder law. The right to vote is also covered by various Acts of Parliament as is your right to a fair trial (also habeus corpus).

 

We already have our rights safeguarded by our own laws. The ECHR gives us very little that we do not already have. We do not need it.

 

I'm not against a formal constitution that would put everything in layman's terms to make it easier to know our rights.

Sorry but you're wrong. The act of murder is an offence under English law. The law does not specify that you have the right not to be murdered, just that if you commit the act you have committed an offence and will be tried and convicted under the definition of that act in law.

The right to vote is different again, and without going in to lots of tedious detail, why do you think we have a Parliament and 'constitutional monarchy'? It comes from the Magna Carta once again (which is of course a charter). The laws you state just define the framework of the election, not the actual right to vote.

Please have a look through the link in my previous email. There is lots of good stuff in there not covered in UK law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but you're wrong. The act of murder is an offence under English law. The law does not specify that you have the right not to be murdered, just that if you commit the act you have committed an offence and will be tried and convicted under the definition of that act in law.

The right to vote is different again, and without going in to lots of tedious detail, why do you think we have a Parliament and 'constitutional monarchy'? It comes from the Magna Carta once again (which is of course a charter). The laws you state just define the framework of the election, not the actual right to vote.

Please have a look through the link in my previous email. There is lots of good stuff in there not covered in UK law.

The law does not need to specify that you have the right not to be murdered. It is implicit and derives from the law.

 

I've read the link before but as I said before what do you think is there that we do not have already? IMO basically nothing.

 

Magna Carta specifies that there should be a parliament, it certainly does not specify the right of universal sufferage. This came later in various acts of parliament. A fresh "convention" was not necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe a better question to ask would be what human rights guarded in the ECHR do you want to opt out of and why?

(and sorry JohnM for the thread drift)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



League Express - Mon 10th April 2017

Rugby League World - April 2017