colhint Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 Not saying it's right or wrong. I don't know. But, people who accept ECHR can't really complain if it goes against them. Can they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodgyknees Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 39 minutes ago, ml1dch said: Yellowhammer, Government, August 2019. While I don't want to say that this was all rather predictable... It'll be fine, we got through the Blitz. etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 (edited) 7 minutes ago, colhint said: Not saying it's right or wrong. I don't know. But, people who accept ECHR can't really complain if it goes against them. Can they? Just repeating an acronym isn't saying 'right' or 'wrong', it's literally saying nothing other than repeating an acronym. What in the ECHR is the issue, here? Edited September 11, 2019 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted September 11, 2019 Moderator Share Posted September 11, 2019 1 hour ago, snowychap said: Of course, the only response available in this case is for Parliament to sit and hold the Government in contempt (as earlier in this Parliament). Unfortunately, they're unable to do this for 5 weeks or more, unless ... Supreme Court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 1 minute ago, NurembergVillan said: We've already been there, though, Rob. The Government aren't (and I don't see how they're going to change this position other than being forced) going to do anything until the Supreme Court give their judgment. Even though the hearing is scheduled for next Tuesday, it's apparently unlikely to be laid down until the following week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NurembergVillan Posted September 11, 2019 Moderator Share Posted September 11, 2019 1 minute ago, snowychap said: We've already been there, though, Rob. The Government aren't (and I don't see how they're going to change this position other than being forced) going to do anything until the Supreme Court give their judgment. Even though the hearing is scheduled for next Tuesday, it's apparently unlikely to be laid down until the following week. I can see a lot of MPs turning up tomorrow to make a point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 11 minutes ago, snowychap said: Just repeating an acronym isn't saying 'right' or 'wrong', it's literally saying nothing other than repeating an acronym. What in the ECHR is the issue, here? Article 8 private life home life and correspondence. Its about 150 pages long, so I don't know all the in's and outs. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 1 minute ago, NurembergVillan said: I can see a lot of MPs turning up tomorrow to make a point. I'd love it, tbh. It would be nothing more than a photo opportunity in the House of Commons, though, I think. On the other hand, I gather, Cooper and her select committee ran an unnofficial version of it earlier taking evidence. The only problem is, as far as I can see, it won't be documented as official evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 2 minutes ago, colhint said: Article 8 private life home life and correspondence. Its about 150 pages long, so I don't know all the in's and outs. Again, you can't just quote a headline and leave it at that. This is nonsense. You have to explain why something is relevant rather than just shouting 'Article 8' and then **** off (as Cummings and his cohorts seem to have done). It's interesting that you appear to be parroting the Tory HQ/Guido line. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 4 minutes ago, snowychap said: It's interesting that you appear to be parroting the Tory HQ/Guido line. And zero criticism of the Govt's behaviour.. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post bickster Posted September 11, 2019 Moderator Popular Post Share Posted September 11, 2019 Article 8 Quote Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life 1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Wiki 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 12 minutes ago, colhint said: ...so I don't know all the in's and outs. Why would you assume any illegality then? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 14 minutes ago, snowychap said: Again, you can't just quote a headline and leave it at that. This is nonsense. You have to explain why something is relevant rather than just shouting 'Article 8' and then **** off (as Cummings and his cohorts seem to have done). It's interesting that you appear to be parroting the Tory HQ/Guido line. I haven't just quoted a headline. I questioned whether it was legal. I didn't just shout article 8 and then eff off. I remember reading about article 8 a while back and remembered a few bits that;s all. You're last line appears to be covered in Article 9 an individuals right to freedom of thought conscience and religion, Article 10 freedom of expression and Article 14 prohibition of discrimination. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 12 minutes ago, ml1dch said: Why would you assume any illegality then? I suppose the same way you guessed a response a short while ago. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 (edited) 39 minutes ago, colhint said: I haven't just quoted a headline. I questioned whether it was legal. I didn't just shout article 8 and then eff off. I remember reading about article 8 a while back and remembered a few bits that;s all. You're last line appears to be covered in Article 9 an individuals right to freedom of thought conscience and religion, Article 10 freedom of expression and Article 14 prohibition of discrimination. You what? You haven't done anything other than say 'x' appears to be covered by Article 8/9/10/14. Tell us how, please. Again, you appear to have just said 'ooh, article 8', 'ooh, article 9', &c. It's comically bad. Tell me one way in which, in your view, something to which you object contravenes an article in the ECHR and HOW it does. Once you do then we can discuss whether or not we think it does (obviously legal arguments might well be of more weight than our messageboard discussions). Edited September 11, 2019 by snowychap 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 Like I said it's about 150 pages of legal document's. it covers all those articles and then went on to say it's load of cock. If you are sure it's a load of cock check it out yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanAVFC Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 5 minutes ago, colhint said: Like I said it's about 150 pages of legal document's. it covers all those articles and then went on to say it's load of cock. If you are sure it's a load of cock check it out yourself. Burden of proof is on you here. You said it's illegal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 5 minutes ago, colhint said: Like I said it's about 150 pages of legal document's. it covers all those articles and then went on to say it's load of cock. If you are sure it's a load of cock check it out yourself. Ha ha ha. You're the one who brought it up. It's incumbent upon you to make the case. Surely you get that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted September 11, 2019 Share Posted September 11, 2019 1 minute ago, StefanAVFC said: Burden of proof is on you here. You said it's illegal Burden of proof is a legal term, so it's now on you. Show me where I said that it's illegal? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts