Archived

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

JohnM

Red Len ..strikes again?

52 posts in this topic

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

so you agree with me, in that its a law that defines what you can't do, fair enough!

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.

if so why do you want to junk it, which bits don't you like?

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.

Again the laws in that instance define the process, saying you have a right to vote is not the same as the definition of the electoral process. They are separate, maybe wrongly so but thats why Europe has no say in our actual electoral system. Incidentally, one of the bits of the Magna Carta still not superseded is the right to due process, you could argue that this is one of the problems in this instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so you agree with me, in that its a law that defines what you can't do, fair enough!if so why do you want to junk it, which bits don't you like?Again the laws in that instance define the process, saying you have a right to vote is not the same as the definition of the electoral process. They are separate, maybe wrongly so but thats why Europe has no say in our actual electoral system. Incidentally, one of the bits of the Magna Carta still not superseded is the right to due process, you could argue that this is one of the problems in this instance.

It defines what you can't do but implicitly it defines what others can't do to you thus creating a right. If I am murdered then those responsible will be persued by the legal system. In fact if someone even attempts it or threats it then they will also be dealt with (or should be). Thus a right is created.

 

The problem with the ECHR is that it creates the responsibility for the British government to ensure that a Jordanian citizen is not tortured by the Jordanian authorities. This is nonsense and needs to go. Qatada has the right not to be tortured by the British government and that's as far as it should go.

 

The right to vote did not come in until the 20th century before that *some* people had the right to vote. The right to universal sufferage of adults over 18 and resident in the UK was enshrined in an act of parliament. Nothing to do with Magna Carta which was about the rights of feudal barons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



Rugby League World - April 2017

League Express - Mon 10th April 2017