Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Uk Debate Mk 2, the UK's liveliest political and social debate site.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Try it. Just try it.
Topic Started: Oct 3 2014, 04:22 PM (730 Views)
D-L
Member Avatar
Junior Member
[ *  * ]
First, it was Cameron's red lines and vetos. Then came May's demands. Now it's Grayling and his ultimatum to the ECHR.

The only language they seem to understand is the language of confrontation and threats. Think this is an effective approach to relationships? Well, try it out in your day-to-day life then. Instead of asking for things, demand them. Treat every single conversation as a zero-sum game. Instead of simply ordering a pint at the pub, say "If you don't get me that beer in 30 seconds flat, I'm never coming back here again.". Make sure to throw in lots of threats, ultimatums and red lines.

Report back in a month and tell us how successful that approach has proved for you.
Edited by D-L, Oct 3 2014, 04:23 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
I see nothing wrong with our Courts making independent decisions on matters that relate to the UK with no interference tolerated by a foreign Court, nor our Government amending or instigating legislation again with no interference tolerated by the ruddy EU.

Far from it I welcome it and want it too happen.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
D-L
Member Avatar
Junior Member
[ *  * ]
Stan Still
Oct 3 2014, 04:41 PM
I see nothing wrong with our Courts making independent decisions on matters that relate to the UK with no interference tolerated by a foreign Court, nor our Government amending or instigating legislation again with no interference tolerated by the ruddy EU.

Far from it I welcome it and want it too happen.
I understand your wish for British courts to be independent. Do you also agree that British courts should be independent from meddling MPs, i.e. do you agree that separation of powers is one of the linchpins of democracy?
Edited by D-L, Oct 3 2014, 04:59 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tytoalba
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
D-L
Oct 3 2014, 04:59 PM
Stan Still
Oct 3 2014, 04:41 PM
I see nothing wrong with our Courts making independent decisions on matters that relate to the UK with no interference tolerated by a foreign Court, nor our Government amending or instigating legislation again with no interference tolerated by the ruddy EU.

Far from it I welcome it and want it too happen.
I understand your wish for British courts to be independent. Do you also agree that British courts should be independent from meddling MPs, i.e. do you agree that separation of powers is one of the linchpins of democracy?
The "meddling" Mps make the laws , the courts interpret them.
Someone has to make them and it is better that a demcraticaly elected Parliament , elected by the people, and carrying out the will of the people or doing what needs to be done for the majority of people does just that.
Who do you think should make the laws of the land, the undemcratic rioting mobs or the the politically motivated union millitants?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
D-L
Oct 3 2014, 04:59 PM
Stan Still
Oct 3 2014, 04:41 PM
I see nothing wrong with our Courts making independent decisions on matters that relate to the UK with no interference tolerated by a foreign Court, nor our Government amending or instigating legislation again with no interference tolerated by the ruddy EU.

Far from it I welcome it and want it too happen.
I understand your wish for British courts to be independent. Do you also agree that British courts should be independent from meddling MPs, i.e. do you agree that separation of powers is one of the linchpins of democracy?
As said the MP's make the legislation the Courts interpret them.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
D-L
Oct 3 2014, 04:59 PM
Stan Still
Oct 3 2014, 04:41 PM
I see nothing wrong with our Courts making independent decisions on matters that relate to the UK with no interference tolerated by a foreign Court, nor our Government amending or instigating legislation again with no interference tolerated by the ruddy EU.

Far from it I welcome it and want it too happen.
I understand your wish for British courts to be independent. Do you also agree that British courts should be independent from meddling MPs, i.e. do you agree that separation of powers is one of the linchpins of democracy?
It may shock some of you - especially those from the old site.

But I'm 110% with Danny on this.

The ECHR has led to some mad, mad, messed up processes.

But I think this is NOT a problem with the ECHR; it is a problem with interpretation of the ECHR.

I think a case can be made for British Courts to be the final arbiters of how those interpretations pan out.

But those Courts must be 200% independent from MPs.

The idea that MPs will be able to direct British Courts "how" to interpret Human Rights law should send a shiver down the spine of every single one of us.

If we allow this it will soon be a case of: When they came for Maternity Pay I said nothing because I wasn't a woman.

The British were the architects of the ECHR; it is a legacy we should not only be proud of, but it is a legacy we should, indeed must, be prepared to defend to the hilt.

The insane hoop-jumping we have to go through to deport people like Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada are a genuine slap in the face to decent, right-minded people of whatever political persuasion.

But if the choice is putting up with that, or surrendering the ECHR - I'd have to go with putting up with that.

We surrender our participation of the ECHR at our peril.

All The Best
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Stan Still
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
There is no reason why we cannot draw up a similar bit of legislation that works for us and administered by us, we had one for years that was perfectly adequate until Labour ditched it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Stan Still
Oct 3 2014, 06:33 PM
There is no reason why we cannot draw up a similar bit of legislation that works for us and administered by us, we had one for years that was perfectly adequate until Labour ditched it.
What the Tories are neglecting to state is the at is out of over 600000 cases involving the EHRC and Britain only 8 have involved a decision the government is annoyed about.
The Tories are involved in a nasty exercise that would leave us all with less human rights than the population of North Korea.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Stan Still
Oct 3 2014, 06:33 PM
There is no reason why we cannot draw up a similar bit of legislation that works for us and administered by us, we had one for years that was perfectly adequate until Labour ditched it.


What did Labour ditch?

Why is this about "party politics" rather than "good politics"?

You are aware that we have been a signatory of the ECHR since 1950 (Convention came into power in 1953) and that British MP (Tory) and lawyer Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe was one of the principal architects of the ECHR.

This is knee-jerk Toryism for the moronic-masses.

You're smarter than that Stan.

All The Best
Edited by Pro Veritas, Oct 3 2014, 06:47 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Oct 3 2014, 06:47 PM


You are aware that we have been a signatory of the ECHR since 1950 (Convention came into power in 1953) and that British MP (Tory) and lawyer Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe was one of the principal architects of the ECHR.

This is knee-jerk Toryism for the moronic-masses.

You're smarter than that Stan.

All The Best
Quite.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Heinrich
Member Avatar
Regular Guy
[ *  *  *  * ]
The European Court of Human Rights is our European court (not a foreign court) which guarantees the rights of all European citizens and the Council of Europe requires Member states of the European Union to accept this court enshrined in the Charter of Human Rights. If England leaves the European Union, Westminster politicians can do what they like. Good luck.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Heinrich
Oct 3 2014, 07:18 PM
The European Court of Human Rights is our European court (not a foreign court) which guarantees the rights of all European citizens and the Council of Europe requires Member states of the European Union to accept this court enshrined in the Charter of Human Rights. If England leaves the European Union, Westminster politicians can do what they like. Good luck.
We were signatories of the ECHR LONG before we were member of the EU.

Too many people get confused over the ECHR and the EU.

Yes, if we want to be in the EU we need to stay signed up to the ECHR.

Leaving the EU does NOT take us out of the ECHR as our membership of the ECHR predates our membership of the EU by several decades.

All The Best
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Heinrich
Member Avatar
Regular Guy
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Oct 3 2014, 07:40 PM
Heinrich
Oct 3 2014, 07:18 PM
The European Court of Human Rights is our European court (not a foreign court) which guarantees the rights of all European citizens and the Council of Europe requires Member states of the European Union to accept this court enshrined in the Charter of Human Rights. If England leaves the European Union, Westminster politicians can do what they like. Good luck.
We were signatories of the ECHR LONG before we were member of the EU.

Too many people get confused over the ECHR and the EU.

Yes, if we want to be in the EU we need to stay signed up to the ECHR.

Leaving the EU does NOT take us out of the ECHR as our membership of the ECHR predates our membership of the EU by several decades.

All The Best
I am not confused.

"The European Union’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is required under Article 6 of the Lisbon Treaty and foreseen by Article 59 of the ECHR as amended by the Protocol 14."

And

"The ECHR offers protection of fundamental civil and political rights and provides for an enforcement machinery through the European Court of Human Rights, which is an organ of the Council of Europe and based in Strasbourg. Individuals who deem their rights have been violated in one country can bring their case to the Strasbourg court after exhaustion of domestic remedies."

http://hub.coe.int/what-we-do/human-rights/eu-accession-to-the-convention
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
D-L
Member Avatar
Junior Member
[ *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Oct 3 2014, 06:28 PM
It may shock some of you - especially those from the old site.

But I'm 110% with Danny on this.
Not so long ago, a woman wanted to claim some sort of benefit (don't remember which, perhaps Papasmurf remembers the story) worth a few thousands of pounds over a few years. The government disagreed and, because it had something to do with IDS's flagship programme, it went to court to deny the woman the benefits.

When the case ended up at the last court of appeal (don't remember whether it was the ECHR or a British court), the judges handed down a clear sentence: the woman HAD been entitled to those benefits, and the government HAD to pay her all the unpaid benefits she was owed.

So, what happened next? Well, the Tories, with the aid of a handful of collaborationist Labour and Lib Dem MPs, changed the relevant law WITH RETROACTIVE EFFECT to make sure said woman not only was no longer entitled to benefits, but legally she had never been, and therefore was owed no money (although I think money was less of an issue here than the desire to crush all opposition to IDS's benefit cut plans).

Now imagine them doing the same thing but with fundamental human rights. It's a nightmare scenario.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jeevesnwooster
҈
[ *  *  * ]
"The idea that MPs will be able to direct British Courts "how" to interpret Human Rights law should send a shiver down the spine of every single one of us."

I agree, it is very scary indeed. Scary times we live in..
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Pro Veritas
Upstanding Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Heinrich
Oct 3 2014, 07:59 PM
I am not confused.

"The European Union’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is required under Article 6 of the Lisbon Treaty and foreseen by Article 59 of the ECHR as amended by the Protocol 14."

And

"The ECHR offers protection of fundamental civil and political rights and provides for an enforcement machinery through the European Court of Human Rights, which is an organ of the Council of Europe and based in Strasbourg. Individuals who deem their rights have been violated in one country can bring their case to the Strasbourg court after exhaustion of domestic remedies."

http://hub.coe.int/what-we-do/human-rights/eu-accession-to-the-convention
You are confused.

You seem to think that the UK leaving the EU automatically means that the UK also secedes from the ECHR.

It doesn't.

We were signatories of the ECHR BEFORE we were members of the EU.

We could remain ECHR signatories AFTER leaving the EU.

The two are not necessarily linked.

All The Best
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Well I now know for definite I won't be voting Tory next May.

They want to remove one of the key bastions against evil all because of their own incompetence.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tytoalba
Oct 3 2014, 06:17 PM
D-L
Oct 3 2014, 04:59 PM
Stan Still
Oct 3 2014, 04:41 PM
I see nothing wrong with our Courts making independent decisions on matters that relate to the UK with no interference tolerated by a foreign Court, nor our Government amending or instigating legislation again with no interference tolerated by the ruddy EU.

Far from it I welcome it and want it too happen.
I understand your wish for British courts to be independent. Do you also agree that British courts should be independent from meddling MPs, i.e. do you agree that separation of powers is one of the linchpins of democracy?
The "meddling" Mps make the laws , the courts interpret them.
Someone has to make them and it is better that a demcraticaly elected Parliament , elected by the people, and carrying out the will of the people or doing what needs to be done for the majority of people does just that.
Who do you think should make the laws of the land, the undemcratic rioting mobs or the the politically motivated union millitants?
I've read it twice and it still makes no sense in the context of the debate.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 3 2014, 09:06 PM
Well I now know for definite I won't be voting Tory next May.

They want to remove one of the key bastions against evil all because of their own incompetence.
Couldn't agree more, although given the likely choice of candidates in my area I'll be spoiling my ballot paper this time.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Tigger
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Oct 3 2014, 08:48 PM
Posted Image
/8/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
Tigger
Oct 3 2014, 09:39 PM
Steve K
Oct 3 2014, 09:06 PM
Well I now know for definite I won't be voting Tory next May.

They want to remove one of the key bastions against evil all because of their own incompetence.
Couldn't agree more, although given the likely choice of candidates in my area I'll be spoiling my ballot paper this time.
They weren't exactly likely to get my vote anyway. Spoiling my vote is a serious possibility for me too.

I just even remotely cannot vote for a party that smugly wants to be proud of saying we have to change the law because the Europeans stopped us endorsing torture and pointed out we'd filled in the forms incorrectly.

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jeevesnwooster
҈
[ *  *  * ]
Good on you both for wanting to spoil your ballot, I shall be doing just the same
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
papasmurf
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
jeevesnwooster
Oct 3 2014, 09:50 PM
Good on you both for wanting to spoil your ballot, I shall be doing just the same
I won't be, I shall be holding my nose and voting for the candidate most likely to keep a Tory out.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
papasmurf
Oct 3 2014, 09:52 PM
jeevesnwooster
Oct 3 2014, 09:50 PM
Good on you both for wanting to spoil your ballot, I shall be doing just the same
I won't be, I shall be holding my nose and voting for the candidate most likely to keep a Tory out.
Not an option here, mine's the constituency that voted in Greg bonkers Barker with a large majority and then went and did it again. They'd vote in large numbers for a turd in a blue rosette (frankly that might be a better representative than Barker)

Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jeevesnwooster
҈
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 3 2014, 09:56 PM
They'd vote in large numbers for a turd in a blue rosette (frankly that might be a better representative than Barker)

Not sure if Amber Rudd is any better than Barker, maybe they're equally as bad actually, I'll go for that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Heinrich
Member Avatar
Regular Guy
[ *  *  *  * ]
double post
Edited by Heinrich, Oct 3 2014, 10:44 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Heinrich
Member Avatar
Regular Guy
[ *  *  *  * ]
Pro Veritas
Oct 3 2014, 08:43 PM
Heinrich
Oct 3 2014, 07:59 PM
I am not confused.

"The European Union’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is required under Article 6 of the Lisbon Treaty and foreseen by Article 59 of the ECHR as amended by the Protocol 14."

And

"The ECHR offers protection of fundamental civil and political rights and provides for an enforcement machinery through the European Court of Human Rights, which is an organ of the Council of Europe and based in Strasbourg. Individuals who deem their rights have been violated in one country can bring their case to the Strasbourg court after exhaustion of domestic remedies."

http://hub.coe.int/what-we-do/human-rights/eu-accession-to-the-convention
You are confused.

You seem to think that the UK leaving the EU automatically means that the UK also secedes from the ECHR.

It doesn't.

We were signatories of the ECHR BEFORE we were members of the EU.

We could remain ECHR signatories AFTER leaving the EU.

The two are not necessarily linked.

All The Best
You are missing my point. The two are necessarily linked in that Member states of the European Union are required to abide by the European Court of Human Rights. When England leaves the EU, taking Scotland and Wales with it, then it can join Belarus and do as the Tories wish, disregarding the the court but cannot do this as a Member and bound by the Lisbon Treaty.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
D-L
Member Avatar
Junior Member
[ *  * ]
papasmurf
Oct 3 2014, 09:52 PM
jeevesnwooster
Oct 3 2014, 09:50 PM
Good on you both for wanting to spoil your ballot, I shall be doing just the same
I won't be, I shall be holding my nose and voting for the candidate most likely to keep a Tory out.
I think I'll be doing the same, spoiling the vote would be more intellectually satisfying, but right now we can't afford to waste a single vote in our effort to kick these Tories out.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
jeevesnwooster
Oct 3 2014, 10:04 PM
Steve K
Oct 3 2014, 09:56 PM
They'd vote in large numbers for a turd in a blue rosette (frankly that might be a better representative than Barker)

Not sure if Amber Rudd is any better than Barker, maybe they're equally as bad actually, I'll go for that.
I've not heard bad about Rudd but her predecessor Michael Foster I met several times and he was imho an excellent MP who worked his socks off for his constituents and sacrificed his political career on a point of principle. When people here blanket castigate all MPs I always think they don't know him.

I don't know if he's standing next year but the constituency is likely to be a key marginal must win for Labour.



As for Greg Barker (the MP that supported effin up the A21section that wasn't even in his constituency) he is not standing next year. That will deprive me of the opportunity to ask him this at one of his meetings:

"Excuse me Mr Barker but what was the first thing about the multi £million heiress Celeste Harrison that attracted you as a gay man so much you married her?"

damn

Edited by Steve K, Oct 3 2014, 10:54 PM.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
"I will go to Brussels and I will not take no for an answer". DC
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Affa
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Heinrich
Oct 3 2014, 10:42 PM
You are missing my point. The two are necessarily linked in that Member states of the European Union are required to abide by the European Court of Human Rights. When England leaves the EU, taking Scotland and Wales with it, then it can join Belarus and do as the Tories wish, disregarding the the court but cannot do this as a Member and bound by the Lisbon Treaty.

Bearing this in mind, would it not indicate that when Cameron does go Brussels to negotiate new terms for Britain (his reforms and reclaiming of powers), it will be this sort of threat he uses?

More or less saying, 'if you don't give me what I want, then I'll produce the referendum and join the Brexit side'. The fly in the ointment for Cameron is that they are unlikely to believe him, and will ignore his threats - the UK State wants in, the CBI wants in, all of business including the FS sector want in. No Tory leader is going to swim against that tide.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jeevesnwooster
҈
[ *  *  * ]
Steve K
Oct 3 2014, 10:48 PM
jeevesnwooster
Oct 3 2014, 10:04 PM
Steve K
Oct 3 2014, 09:56 PM
They'd vote in large numbers for a turd in a blue rosette (frankly that might be a better representative than Barker)

Not sure if Amber Rudd is any better than Barker, maybe they're equally as bad actually, I'll go for that.
I've not heard bad about Rudd but her predecessor Michael Foster I met several times and he was imho an excellent MP who worked his socks off for his constituents and sacrificed his political career on a point of principle. When people here blanket castigate all MPs I always think they don't know him.

I don't know if he's standing next year but the constituency is likely to be a key marginal must win for Labour.



As for Greg Barker (the MP that supported effin up the A21section that wasn't even in his constituency) he is not standing next year. That will deprive me of the opportunity to ask him this at one of his meetings:

"Excuse me Mr Barker but what was the first thing about the multi £million heiress Celeste Harrison that attracted you as a gay man so much you married her?"

damn

I've heard good things about Foster, but Sarah Owen is standing for Labour she's just as out of touch as Amber Rudd if you ask me (look at her 'cutesy selfie' to give a clue). That said she's arguably better, still won't be voting for her

Amber Rudd, that old girl:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/97b6f7e6-ad46-11e2-b27f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3F8XJV3iE

"“Doesn’t it look a bit depressing?”


“I wanted to be within two hours of London and I could see we were going to win it.”"

Her expenses, her general conduct and her record at parliament leaves loads to be desired. Recently she was snapped at the food bank giving patronising advice to people forced to use the place, nothing annoys me more than that.

All in all, a complete buffoon of an MP.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Heinrich
Member Avatar
Regular Guy
[ *  *  *  * ]
Affa
Oct 4 2014, 12:33 AM
Heinrich
Oct 3 2014, 10:42 PM
You are missing my point. The two are necessarily linked in that Member states of the European Union are required to abide by the European Court of Human Rights. When England leaves the EU, taking Scotland and Wales with it, then it can join Belarus and do as the Tories wish, disregarding the the court but cannot do this as a Member and bound by the Lisbon Treaty.

Bearing this in mind, would it not indicate that when Cameron does go Brussels to negotiate new terms for Britain (his reforms and reclaiming of powers), it will be this sort of threat he uses?

More or less saying, 'if you don't give me what I want, then I'll produce the referendum and join the Brexit side'. The fly in the ointment for Cameron is that they are unlikely to believe him, and will ignore his threats - the UK State wants in, the CBI wants in, all of business including the FS sector want in. No Tory leader is going to swim against that tide.

England is a discontented Member of the European Union. The single market does make economic sense to everyone but the ever closer political union underpinned by various treaties was never popular with the English. England has not been good for the EU in self-delusion that it was only a Common Market and in pushing more than any other Member state for the rapid accession of East European countries such as Romania and Bulgaria. England also championed the admission of Turkey in the hope that this would make the political union impossible. But the time has come to make the break and remove the obstructionism to the strengthening of the EU Constitution. France was right to oppose the admission of England knowing that it was asking for trouble. Let's face it, the English want out and the other Members will not see this as a loss.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
johnofgwent
Member Avatar
It .. It is GREEN !!
[ *  *  *  * ]
D-L
Oct 3 2014, 04:59 PM
Stan Still
Oct 3 2014, 04:41 PM
I see nothing wrong with our Courts making independent decisions on matters that relate to the UK with no interference tolerated by a foreign Court, nor our Government amending or instigating legislation again with no interference tolerated by the ruddy EU.

Far from it I welcome it and want it too happen.
I understand your wish for British courts to be independent. Do you also agree that British courts should be independent from meddling MPs, i.e. do you agree that separation of powers is one of the linchpins of democracy?
Ah but there you have the problem.

I think you and I can both agree when Derry Irvine held £1000 a plate dinners in aid of labour party funds for silks seeking to become judges he should have been taken out and whipped through the streets of aberdeen before being plunged one piece at a time into a meat grinder ...

But if the judiciary is truly independent of the executive, how does one handle tosspot judiciaries in positions of secured tenure ? I could line up a dozen dodgy verdicts and a dozen squared barmy "reasoned arguments" made by "their alzheimernesses" to point to their unfitness to practice but that would probably divert the thread.

It is one thing to have secured tenure academics being paid handsomely to rant insanely over their pet projets from the ivory towers of their university prisons from which they can never leave as they would never survive an instant in the real world

Having that same insanity allowed to proceed unchecked in those who allow people to walk free with a slap on the wrist when society demands a flogging or the like ... is quite another. How does one translate the rightful wrath of an aggrieved society seeing injustice meted out instead of justice into termination of employment for the incompetent, unfit and the plain barking mad UNLESS that separation is overcome and the judiciary made answerable ?



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Steve K
Member Avatar
Once and future cynic
[ *  *  *  * ]
jeevesnwooster
Oct 4 2014, 01:50 AM
. .I've heard good things about Foster, but Sarah Owen is standing for Labour she's just as out of touch as Amber Rudd if you ask me (look at her 'cutesy selfie' to give a clue). That said she's arguably better, still won't be voting for her

Amber Rudd, that old girl:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/97b6f7e6-ad46-11e2-b27f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3F8XJV3iE

"“Doesn’t it look a bit depressing?”


“I wanted to be within two hours of London and I could see we were going to win it.”"

Her expenses, her general conduct and her record at parliament leaves loads to be desired. Recently she was snapped at the food bank giving patronising advice to people forced to use the place, nothing annoys me more than that.

All in all, a complete buffoon of an MP.
Interesting FT article, ta. "Buffoon" is a bit harsh imho. She's just not a player and I'd want more than a pawn representing me.

Sad that the media always make sure they say bad things about Hastings. It has issues but it also has a lot of people working very hard to make it better and there are successes too.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Happy Hornet
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Wrt to the op, some people do take that approach to day to day life and get away with it because confronting them is too much hassle for a lot of people.

I used to have a boss who was a mini tyrant, he couldn't handle the pressure of his position so would lash out at me and the rest of the team with behaviour that you would usually associate with a playground bully.

Everyone complained about it, one woman was reduced to tears by him, but when I decided enough was enough and that I would sit down with him and request an attitude readjustment I did so with out any support from the others.

People just tend to go along to get along.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
krugerman
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
The whole idea of "common" law or regulation is to give proper and decent standards or rules which apply to all people, all governments or all nations and member states.

The ECHR is a very good instrument and institution, it means one law and one standard for all, no loopholes to the law by flitting from one neighbouring state to the other, and the British people should be extremely worried and suspicious of what the Conservatives propose to do.

The United Kingdom is a signitory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The United Kingdom is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.

The United Kingdom is a signatory to the United Nations Convention Against Torture

We are a signatory to the OECD, the OSCE, WTO, Geneva Conventions, and countless other international agreements and regulators covering a wide range of topics and issues.

The Conservatives have always been against regulation, prefering to call it "red tape" and implying that many regulators are "quango s", but without the rule of law and international agreement, the world would be chaotic.

The UK government and sections of society opposed the ECHR in the matter of Abu Qatada, where the ECHR ruled that Qatada must not be deported to Jordan unless an absolute undertaking was given that evidence used against Qatada must not be evidence gained or extracted through any means of torture.

I am very sorry, but I totaly, 100% and absolutely agree with the ECHR ruling, it cannot be right for any British government to turn a blind eye to any form of misjustice, including torture, no matter what the prevailing circumstances are.





Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Marconi
Member Avatar
Regular Member
[ *  *  * ]
Happy Hornet
Oct 4 2014, 09:56 AM
Wrt to the op, some people do take that approach to day to day life and get away with it because confronting them is too much hassle for a lot of people.

I used to have a boss who was a mini tyrant, he couldn't handle the pressure of his position so would lash out at me and the rest of the team with behaviour that you would usually associate with a playground bully.

Everyone complained about it, one woman was reduced to tears by him, but when I decided enough was enough and that I would sit down with him and request an attitude readjustment I did so with out any support from the others.

People just tend to go along to get along.
Did your boss change his attitude after your talk?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Happy Hornet
Senior Member
[ *  *  *  * ]
Nope, he simply flat out denied that he had done anything wrong and insisted that I was the only one who had a problem with him, despite clear evidence to the contrary such as other members of the team crying at her desk. Had the rest of the team been there with me he couldn't have used that argument. I also tried speaking to his boss about it, he knew what he was like but being as he was only a couple of years away from retirement he thought that investment in training would be a waste of money so he was basically going to turn a blind eye until the guy retired.

I found a position elsewhere and last I heard nothing has changed at my old work place.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics · Next Topic »
Add Reply