Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Brady and Sutcliffe both went into secure mental hospitals, not ordinary prisons on life sentences. Their status is mental patients.

Neither Brady or Sutcliffe would be subject to that law since they're mentally ill. They can only be released when they're cured, which isn't ever likely to happen.

Twice in one day? This is getting silly now KK.

This is an excellent blog

http://jackofkent.com/

In summary

The Sewell Convention implies a Scottish Governmnet veto when the UK Parliamement wishes to legistlate in areas which are devolved.

Law is devolved.

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN02084/SN02084.pdf

The ECHR is as much as to do with the EU as the UEFA cup - they all just have 'Europe' in the name.

As another poster has rightly pointed out, agreeing that the ECHR would apply in Northern Ireland was written in to the NI peace deal.

Regards

FBJ

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Brady and Sutcliffe both went into secure mental hospitals, not ordinary prisons on life sentences. Their status is mental patients.

Not relevant both are under life tariffs, appointed by the Home Secretary of the time.

A challenge from Strassbourg to eliminate life tariffs would still apply to Brady and Sutcliffe, who could then be released if declared sane. As Brady is known for playing the system and likely is sane this could cause problems.
In any event that doesn't need to materialise, the very fact that life tariffs were stripped would be enough to rile the populace. As Brady would have a potential window of release and the press will run with that.

Orlanth, with all due respect, this is getting a bit silly.

You maintain that the Good Friday agreement would be an exception to the scrapping of the Human Rights Act,

But, this would result in the HRA being allowed in one part of the UK, but not others...

That is illogical nonsense. People would flock to Northern Ireland for their court cases. The Judges' verdict would equally apply to other parts of the UK, as it does now.

Imagine if federal laws only applied in California, but not the other states of the USA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

FacebookJunkie wrote:
This is an excellent blog

http://jackofkent.com/

In summary

The Sewell Convention implies a Scottish Governmnet veto when the UK Parliamement wishes to legistlate in areas which are devolved.

Law is devolved.

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN02084/SN02084.pdf

The ECHR is as much as to do with the EU as the UEFA cup - they all just have 'Europe' in the name.

As another poster has rightly pointed out, agreeing that the ECHR would apply in Northern Ireland was written in to the NI peace deal.

Regards

FBJ

and the NI peace deal is an INTERNATIONAL treaty. London can't unilaterally decide which bits to amend without Dublin's consent.

 George Spiggott wrote:
Did anyone else think that the other Tory/UKIPs defector's decision turned out to be a little Reckless?

 Orlanth wrote:
A challenge from Strassbourg to eliminate life tariffs would still apply to Brady and Sutcliffe, who could then be released if declared sane. As Brady is known for playing the system and likely is sane this could cause problems.
In any event that doesn't need to materialise, the very fact that life tariffs were stripped would be enough to rile the populace. As Brady would have a potential window of release and the press will run with that.

Way too much speculation and ifs there. Brady isn't sane and the challenge would still have to be successful.

I'd have more faith in this Tory plan if they implemented the UK law first, then dropped the EU one.

FacebookJunkie wrote:
This is an excellent blog
http://jackofkent.com/

Good site thanks.
Interesting that there is no Scottish veto on Human Rights, there are simply matters which are devolved.

The short version? The Human Rights Act is not written into the Scotland Act. This is misleading, and increasingly unhelpful, shorthand. Under the devolution legislation, Acts of the Scottish Parliament and decisions of Scottish ministers must comply with European Convention rights.
If they do not, you can take your case to the Court of Session, inviting judges to strike the offending laws or decisions down. The powers of both the legislature and executive are checked. But the Human Rights Act goes further, requiring all public authorities in the United Kingdom - prisons, police officers, councils - to respect your rights to free expression, privacy, property, liberty, and so on. We have two distinct human rights regimes in this country, and if the HRA is repealed, it will require only Holyrood and the Scottish Ministers to take these fundamental rights into account.
But there is another important technicality here. Human rights aren't reserved matters under the Scotland Act. The Human Rights Act is a protected enactment under Schedule 4 of the devolution legislation -- meaning that Holyrood cannot repeal or amend it -- but human rights are devolved.

No problem there, it actually means the UK can withdraw and if the Scottish parliament does not then the Scottish parliament alone is subject to the rulings. The UK can have its Bill of Rights and Scotland can be forced to dance to Strassbourg's tune, and pay Strassbourg's fines if it does not. When the interferences clock up pressure could be on Sturgeon to follow Cameron's 'wise path' and withdraw, which time the Bill of Rights will be waiting for Scots.
We don't know how Cameron will play this, we only have hostile press reports, plus a few please for the legislation to come from the right wing press. No White paper.
Again Cameron isn't an idiot, he will have an angle.

FacebookJunkie wrote:

The ECHR is as much as to do with the EU as the UEFA cup - they all just have 'Europe' in the name.

Not so, well technically true but..... While the ECHR predates the EEC and extends beyond it there are clear links.
In 2013 Judge Dean Spielmann, the President of the European Court of Human Rights, warned that the United Kingdom could not denounce the Convention on Human Rights without jeopardising its membership of the European Union.
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/jun/04/uk-human-rights-withdrawal-political-disaster

While the above threat is largely hollow, the UK would continue to renegotiate its position in the EU and has the ability to do so. It nevertheless highlights the link.

FacebookJunkie wrote:

As another poster has rightly pointed out, agreeing that the ECHR would apply in Northern Ireland was written in to the NI peace deal.

Northern Ireland is a special case on so many levels, they don't even have Tories there. Cameron can fulfill his election pledge and not touch NI. Mountains are being made out of molehills here. England will be in general happy with the legislation change. If the SNP wants to keep Strassbourg in the loop let them, so long as it only effects Scotland. In fact in a very real way both the SNP and Tories can get what they want here.

Also remember that the Guardian has been more than unfair of its reporting on this issue (go figure).
- Cameron wants to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998 not to divorce the UK entirely from the ECHR which the UK was a founding signatory in 1951.
- Cameron wants the UK's relation ship to the ECHR restored to pre-1998 with sovereignty over domestic laws restored.


This is not new:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3590806.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5114102.stm
The tories have been plugging this since 2004.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Orlanth, with all due respect, this is getting a bit silly.

Less than you might first realise.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

You maintain that the Good Friday agreement would be an exception to the scrapping of the Human Rights Act,
But, this would result in the HRA being allowed in one part of the UK, but not others...

Yes,

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

That is illogical nonsense. People would flock to Northern Ireland for their court cases. The Judges' verdict would equally apply to other parts of the UK, as it does now.

Not really. Do you know why. BECAUSE ITS ALREADY HERE.
Scotland has always had a separate judiciary. The Scottish Courts in the current form were set up in 1995, well prior to devolution.
Do you know that Scottish law is legally separate and distinct from English law, and has been throughout the history of the Union.

Some examples.
- Scottish bailiffs courts can act without formal proceeding, they are far stricter than English ones. In this regard Scottish law is 'behind'.
- A Scottish defendant has the right to remain silent in questioning without having inference of guilt unlike a defendant in the English courts system. A case where Scottish rights have not been eroded like English law.

Even core rights differ depending on where you are in the UK. Furthermore the location of the court is less relevant than the location of the plea. I gave an example of this earlier on the thread.

If a defendant is held in England under an offense allegedly committed in Scotland they will be taken by English police to an English police station to wait a Scottish policeman to interview them under Scottish law, while on English soil. Its an everyday proceeding. So if we had a disagreement in England and one of us chose to take the matter to a Northern Irish court, the case would still be tried under English law. and vice versa.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Imagine if federal laws only applied in California, but not the other states of the USA.

Again its not a good comparison.
The UK is not withdrawing from the ECHR, but the Human Rights Act 1998. This alters our relationship with the ECHR, Scotland would remain bound if it wished. As Scottish law has always been a separate entity this is acceptable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_law


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 George Spiggott wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
A challenge from Strassbourg to eliminate life tariffs would still apply to Brady and Sutcliffe, who could then be released if declared sane. As Brady is known for playing the system and likely is sane this could cause problems.
In any event that doesn't need to materialise, the very fact that life tariffs were stripped would be enough to rile the populace. As Brady would have a potential window of release and the press will run with that.

Way too much speculation and ifs there. Brady isn't sane and the challenge would still have to be successful.

Judging mental health is always difficult even for professionals, and Brady is intelligent and manipulative.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/409580/Ian-Brady-is-manipulative-fiercely-bright-and-a-child-murderer-but-is-he-sane-or-insane
Anyway, my point was that Brady need not be successful, the outrage about it being a possibility would be enough to give Cameron a public boost.
Nevertheless that isn't working on Cameron's timetable but as an opportunist reaction to Strassbourg as when or if the ruling occurs. That is the real if, not Brady or Sutcliff's sanity.

 George Spiggott wrote:

I'd have more faith in this Tory plan if they implemented the UK law first, then dropped the EU one.

Not sure that would work as the law would be pointless without implementation. Unless you mean set up the Bill, let the people see it and come to their own conclusions as to whether it will be better for the people if activated and the Human Rights Act replaced by it. Most Bills have an activation at a future date, the timing could include a window to remove the HRA.
Sounds messy, but maybe your right.

 Orlanth wrote:
Judging mental health is always difficult even for professionals, and Brady is intelligent and manipulative.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/409580/Ian-Brady-is-manipulative-fiercely-bright-and-a-child-murderer-but-is-he-sane-or-insane
Anyway, my point was that Brady need not be successful, the outrage about it being a possibility would be enough to give Cameron a public boost.
Nevertheless that isn't working on Cameron's timetable but as an opportunist reaction to Strassbourg as when or if the ruling occurs. That is the real if, not Brady or Sutcliff's sanity.

If you're going to use them as examples then their situation needs to be relevant. A case in Strasbourg could drag on for years and the Government could still reject the decision. Brady doesn't want to be released, is legally insane despite his pleas otherwise and is already 77.

The outrage would have to come from somewhere. Neither of us believe that it would come about from the facts of the situation. Which brings us nicely back to the Express. We know the outcome of that case from the article. Brady is manipulative, bright and mentally ill. It is quite possible to be all of these things at the same time.

Quick question. As you've probably guessed I don't often read the Express. Did they openly come out in favour of the UKIPs in the end as people were speculating they would?

 George Spiggott wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
A challenge from Strassbourg to eliminate life tariffs would still apply to Brady and Sutcliffe, who could then be released if declared sane. As Brady is known for playing the system and likely is sane this could cause problems.
In any event that doesn't need to materialise, the very fact that life tariffs were stripped would be enough to rile the populace. As Brady would have a potential window of release and the press will run with that.

Way too much speculation and ifs there. Brady isn't sane and the challenge would still have to be successful.

I'd have more faith in this Tory plan if they implemented the UK law first, then dropped the EU one.

Well the quickest way is to do both simultaneously. The opening section of the new bill of rights could be 'This act replaces the HRA'.

They want to scrap the ECHR, but it's written into the foundations of all the devolved administrations, in Scotland's case in such a way we would have a veto unless WM railroad through a Scotland act that strips that authority away from us, and it's part of the Good Friday agreement as others have pointed out.

They just put together a cabinet containing a justice minister who wants to bring back hanging, an equalities minister who's anti-gay marriage, a health minister who believes in homeopathy, and a disabilities minister who's consistently voted against the rights and interests of the disabled. Plus BoBo the Clown.

The Conservatives, ladies and gents. Irony is dead, satire is impossible, lets just set off all the nukes now.

 Yodhrin wrote:
They just put together a cabinet containing a justice minister who wants to bring back hanging, an equalities minister who's anti-gay marriage, a health minister who believes in homeopathy, and a disabilities minister who's consistently voted against the rights and interests of the disabled. Plus BoBo the Clown.

Gove is Satan's spawn but nobody really thinks he actually believes the reactionary right wing click bait he wrote in a column (every week to a deadline for money) for a newspaper twenty years ago do they?

 Yodhrin wrote:
They want to scrap the ECHR, but it's written into the foundations of all the devolved administrations, in Scotland's case in such a way we would have a veto unless WM railroad through a Scotland act that strips that authority away from us, and it's part of the Good Friday agreement as others have pointed out.

They just put together a cabinet containing a justice minister who wants to bring back hanging, an equalities minister who's anti-gay marriage, a health minister who believes in homeopathy, and a disabilities minister who's consistently voted against the rights and interests of the disabled. Plus BoBo the Clown.

The Conservatives, ladies and gents. Irony is dead, satire is impossible, lets just set off all the nukes now.

Not necessarily.

It could be entirely possible for the UK Government to scrap the HRA and yet remain in Europe.

The section of the Scottish act you are referring to doesn't make mention of the HRA, only that Scotland must abide to EU law.

You'll then end up in a weird situation where people in Scotland could not take any action against UK bodies, but they could still take claims against Scottish Acts which break the convention laws. But seeing as most of the powers delegated to Scotland couldn't break convention laws if they tried, it would be pretty pointless.

 George Spiggott wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
They just put together a cabinet containing a justice minister who wants to bring back hanging, an equalities minister who's anti-gay marriage, a health minister who believes in homeopathy, and a disabilities minister who's consistently voted against the rights and interests of the disabled. Plus BoBo the Clown.

Gove is Satan's spawn but nobody really thinks he actually believes the reactionary right wing click bait he wrote in a column (every week to a deadline for money) for a newspaper twenty years ago do they?

That's the funny thing about being a politician. If you ever make it to power, everyone muckrakes anything you said ever, and it follows you around like a bad smell. My political views aren't what they were even five years ago, so in most cases, it can be a little unfair.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
They want to scrap the ECHR, but it's written into the foundations of all the devolved administrations, in Scotland's case in such a way we would have a veto unless WM railroad through a Scotland act that strips that authority away from us, and it's part of the Good Friday agreement as others have pointed out.

They just put together a cabinet containing a justice minister who wants to bring back hanging, an equalities minister who's anti-gay marriage, a health minister who believes in homeopathy, and a disabilities minister who's consistently voted against the rights and interests of the disabled. Plus BoBo the Clown.

The Conservatives, ladies and gents. Irony is dead, satire is impossible, lets just set off all the nukes now.

Not necessarily.

It could be entirely possible for the UK Government to scrap the HRA and yet remain in Europe.

The section of the Scottish act you are referring to doesn't make mention of the HRA, only that Scotland must abide to EU law.

You'll then end up in a weird situation where people in Scotland could not take any action against UK bodies, but they could still take claims against Scottish Acts which break the convention laws. But seeing as most of the powers delegated to Scotland couldn't break convention laws if they tried, it would be pretty pointless.

Huh? I didn't mention staying in Europe. Maybe they can get away with it, maybe they can't, the issue is can they actually do it within the context of the current UK political structure?

The ECHR is an explicit component of the Good Friday Agreement, an international treaty, meaning if they want to get rid of the ECHR in Northern Ireland the Republic of Ireland have to be involved in that decision or they will essentially be voiding the GFA.

The issue in Scotland is that human rights law is devolved, meaning unless the UK government want to essentially claim they have a veto over the Scottish government on devolved issues, they will have to request that the Scottish parliament pass a Legislative Consent Motion giving Westminster the authority to legislate in a way that includes Scotland, and the Scottish government have already stated outright they will do no such thing.

If they fail to eliminate the ECHR/Human Rights Act from law in either Scotland or NI, they could end up with people filing cases in those jurisdictions under ECHR/Human Rights Act law and obtaining judgements against UK-wide companies and institutions, meaning all they'll have succeeded in doing is creating a new avenue for legal tourism.

 George Spiggott wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
They just put together a cabinet containing a justice minister who wants to bring back hanging, an equalities minister who's anti-gay marriage, a health minister who believes in homeopathy, and a disabilities minister who's consistently voted against the rights and interests of the disabled. Plus BoBo the Clown.

Gove is Satan's spawn but nobody really thinks he actually believes the reactionary right wing click bait he wrote in a column (every week to a deadline for money) for a newspaper twenty years ago do they?

Normally I'd give someone the benefit of the doubt, but we're talking about Gove, the man who took a massive steaming dump on England's education system for purely ideological reasons. He's never gone back on the statement publicly that I've seen, so until I see him state explicitly that he no longer holds that view I will assume the worst.

 George Spiggott wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
They just put together a cabinet containing a justice minister who wants to bring back hanging, an equalities minister who's anti-gay marriage, a health minister who believes in homeopathy, and a disabilities minister who's consistently voted against the rights and interests of the disabled. Plus BoBo the Clown.

Gove is Satan's spawn but nobody really thinks he actually believes the reactionary right wing click bait he wrote in a column (every week to a deadline for money) for a newspaper twenty years ago do they?

In all honesty, I don't know. I've never liked the Conservatives, but I have no idea what this lot are planning. If they abolished the laws that stopped kids being used as chimney sweeps, I would not be surprised. It's like I'm back in the 1980s. New star wars film, Tories in government, Boy George comeback tour , new terminator film


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yodhrin wrote:
They want to scrap the ECHR, but it's written into the foundations of all the devolved administrations, in Scotland's case in such a way we would have a veto unless WM railroad through a Scotland act that strips that authority away from us, and it's part of the Good Friday agreement as others have pointed out.

They just put together a cabinet containing a justice minister who wants to bring back hanging, an equalities minister who's anti-gay marriage, a health minister who believes in homeopathy, and a disabilities minister who's consistently voted against the rights and interests of the disabled. Plus BoBo the Clown.

The Conservatives, ladies and gents. Irony is dead, satire is impossible, lets just set off all the nukes now.

This.

Again, it's worth pointing out, that in order for the Tories to remove the HRA from Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland would have to agree.

What if Dublin refuses to play ball? What's Gove going to do?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:

 George Spiggott wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
They just put together a cabinet containing a justice minister who wants to bring back hanging, an equalities minister who's anti-gay marriage, a health minister who believes in homeopathy, and a disabilities minister who's consistently voted against the rights and interests of the disabled. Plus BoBo the Clown.

Gove is Satan's spawn but nobody really thinks he actually believes the reactionary right wing click bait he wrote in a column (every week to a deadline for money) for a newspaper twenty years ago do they?

That's the funny thing about being a politician. If you ever make it to power, everyone muckrakes anything you said ever, and it follows you around like a bad smell. My political views aren't what they were even five years ago, so in most cases, it can be a little unfair.

Quick question: are you, or anybody else for that matter on this thread, a lawyer?

With all the legal talk flying around, we need a lawyer ASAP

 Yodhrin wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
They want to scrap the ECHR, but it's written into the foundations of all the devolved administrations, in Scotland's case in such a way we would have a veto unless WM railroad through a Scotland act that strips that authority away from us, and it's part of the Good Friday agreement as others have pointed out.

They just put together a cabinet containing a justice minister who wants to bring back hanging, an equalities minister who's anti-gay marriage, a health minister who believes in homeopathy, and a disabilities minister who's consistently voted against the rights and interests of the disabled. Plus BoBo the Clown.

The Conservatives, ladies and gents. Irony is dead, satire is impossible, lets just set off all the nukes now.

Not necessarily.

It could be entirely possible for the UK Government to scrap the HRA and yet remain in Europe.

The section of the Scottish act you are referring to doesn't make mention of the HRA, only that Scotland must abide to EU law.

You'll then end up in a weird situation where people in Scotland could not take any action against UK bodies, but they could still take claims against Scottish Acts which break the convention laws. But seeing as most of the powers delegated to Scotland couldn't break convention laws if they tried, it would be pretty pointless.

Huh? I didn't mention staying in Europe. Maybe they can get away with it, maybe they can't, the issue is can they actually do it within the context of the current UK political structure?

The ECHR is an explicit component of the Good Friday Agreement, an international treaty, meaning if they want to get rid of the ECHR in Northern Ireland the Republic of Ireland have to be involved in that decision or they will essentially be voiding the GFA.

The issue in Scotland is that human rights law is devolved, meaning unless the UK government want to essentially claim they have a veto over the Scottish government on devolved issues, they will have to request that the Scottish parliament pass a Legislative Consent Motion giving Westminster the authority to legislate in a way that includes Scotland, and the Scottish government have already stated outright they will do no such thing.

If they fail to eliminate the ECHR/Human Rights Act from law in either Scotland or NI, they could end up with people filing cases in those jurisdictions under ECHR/Human Rights Act law and obtaining judgements against UK-wide companies and institutions, meaning all they'll have succeeded in doing is creating a new avenue for legal tourism.

Gah, why the hell did I say Europe. Must be all this revision rotting my brain.

But that's the point I was making. There are two types of ECHR in the UK, those bound to the delegated areas and those bound to the HRA 1998.

The UK can very easily drop the HRA, it's an act of Parliament and Parliament has the power to repeal any act it wishes, that is the law. It also means that the HRA will not apply in any of the devolved areas.

However, the delegated states would still be bound by the ECHR. It just means that they cannot take any UK institutions (because only Public bodies are bound to the CHR anyway) to the European Court. They'd have to take them to the British/Scottish Supreme Courts.

BUT!!!! You'd still be able to take the Scottish Government to the ECtHR for a breach of the ECHR. Say if the Scottish Government allowed torture, firstly it would be invalid because it breaches the ECHR, but you could then take them to the ECtHR. Legal tourism wouldn't work, because the Scottish justice system has no power in England or Wales and especially Northern Ireland.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And I'm a Law Student who studied Public Law and European Law. I know my feth from my gak.

However, the delegated states would still be bound by the ECHR. It just means that they cannot take any UK institutions (because only Public bodies are bound to the CHR anyway) to the European Court. They'd have to take them to the British/Scottish Supreme Courts.

So we're looking at a complete legal mess, lawyers making loads of cash (as usual) and the SNP scoring political points against the Tories.

I'll take it

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

However, the delegated states would still be bound by the ECHR. It just means that they cannot take any UK institutions (because only Public bodies are bound to the CHR anyway) to the European Court. They'd have to take them to the British/Scottish Supreme Courts.

So we're looking at a complete legal mess, lawyers making loads of cash (as usual) and the SNP scoring political points against the Tories.

I'll take it

Not that it really helps seeing as the SNP has maxed out on MPs.


Plus it would be popular in England due to the fact it would appear as though Westminster is giving Scotland the finger.

And so the Tory cycle continues.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

However, the delegated states would still be bound by the ECHR. It just means that they cannot take any UK institutions (because only Public bodies are bound to the CHR anyway) to the European Court. They'd have to take them to the British/Scottish Supreme Courts.

So we're looking at a complete legal mess, lawyers making loads of cash (as usual) and the SNP scoring political points against the Tories.

I'll take it

Not that it really helps seeing as the SNP has maxed out on MPs.


Plus it would be popular in England due to the fact it would appear as though Westminster is giving Scotland the finger.

And so the Tory cycle continues.

But the SNP controlled Scottish Parliament will take a stand, and this will go down well in Scotland, as it would appear as Sturgeon standing up for the nation = more support for independence.

As I said, I like it.

If the HRA was repealed, the UK would still be a signatory to and bound by the European Convention on Human Rights, and would be required to implement it in UK law, perhaps by some kind of a Bill of Rights, or Human Rights Act, if you will.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If the HRA was repealed, the UK would still be a signatory to and bound by the European Convention on Human Rights, and would be required to implement it in UK law, perhaps by some kind of a Bill of Rights, or Human Rights Act, if you will.

I keep banging the drum, but the Northern Ireland aspect is covered by an International treaty with the Republic. I cannot see a way around this.

I honestly think the honeymoon for Cameron will end, because this will be a defeat for him.

It's probably also worth pointing out, as one of the links has done, that the Tories also want to introduce a British Bill of Rights.

Good luck with that. Defining rights for the British (English only? Including the Scots? N Irish?). Even if Gove can sort the extent within the UK to which the Bill applies, he will be hard pushed to come up with rights which aren't already listed under the ECHR.

Cameron has had his knackers grabbed by the Daily Mail. He had a manifesto which he thought was a starting negotiating position with the LibDems...he never thought he would have to win and have to implement the thing.

Carswell's tiff with his party has reached the Torygraph (and the Mail). Something's afoot.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11600843/Ukip-embroiled-in-leadership-row-over-use-of-millions-of-pounds-of-public-money.html

 George Spiggott wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Judging mental health is always difficult even for professionals, and Brady is intelligent and manipulative.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/409580/Ian-Brady-is-manipulative-fiercely-bright-and-a-child-murderer-but-is-he-sane-or-insane
Anyway, my point was that Brady need not be successful, the outrage about it being a possibility would be enough to give Cameron a public boost.
Nevertheless that isn't working on Cameron's timetable but as an opportunist reaction to Strassbourg as when or if the ruling occurs. That is the real if, not Brady or Sutcliff's sanity.

If you're going to use them as examples then their situation needs to be relevant. A case in Strasbourg could drag on for years and the Government could still reject the decision. Brady doesn't want to be released, is legally insane despite his pleas otherwise and is already 77.

As a political stink Brady has potential, but you are right it need not be him. However he is a name never forgotten and would be an excellent icon, 'rights' for some terrorist who cant be deported who no one recognises in seperation to any other is not the same as the Moors Murderer or Yorkshire Ripper. If nothing else he is a clear example for the thread of someone who might technically fall into a release category and who the public deeply hates. Huntley is also a good case study, but Huntley hasn't been in prison anything like long enough for the ECHR to think about getting involved.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3076095/Why-Michael-Gove-not-fail-axe-Labour-s-hated-Human-Rights-Act-JAMES-SLACK-offers-15-reasons.html

Daily Mail gave a list of topical cases to rile the readership, (above) but those wont help Cameron.
Cameron needs a fresh case for outrage to sink its teeth into, those are all old news. Rapists rights are a good one as that riles 50% of the electorate straight off regardless of ethnicity.

 George Spiggott wrote:

The outrage would have to come from somewhere. Neither of us believe that it would come about from the facts of the situation.

Truth is a heady wine, but the best spin is the truth. Despite their source the horror stories the Daily Mail gave in their 15 reasons hold a lot of truth to them, and cover a lot of deeply unpleasant characters.

 George Spiggott wrote:

Quick question. As you've probably guessed I don't often read the Express. Did they openly come out in favour of the UKIPs in the end as people were speculating they would?

No idea. But... searching....

http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/575148/Vote-Ukip-patriotic-Britain

It appears so.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 George Spiggott wrote:
Carswell's tiff with his party has reached the Torygraph (and the Mail). Something's afoot.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11600843/Ukip-embroiled-in-leadership-row-over-use-of-millions-of-pounds-of-public-money.html

I have had my 20 free reads this month, can you copy paste a portion of the article.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
If the HRA was repealed, the UK would still be a signatory to and bound by the European Convention on Human Rights, and would be required to implement it in UK law, perhaps by some kind of a Bill of Rights, or Human Rights Act, if you will.

I keep banging the drum, but the Northern Ireland aspect is covered by an International treaty with the Republic. I cannot see a way around this.

And the drum beat back keeps on saying: That is good grounds for an exception, Northern Ireland is full of exceptions, many are much larger than this, such as mass pardoning of murderers.
Really it is not a big hurdle.

 Orlanth wrote:
As a political stink Brady has potential...

Can you just accept that he was a really bad example and he isn't getting out, especially not as a result of EU law.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3076095/Why-Michael-Gove-not-fail-axe-Labour-s-hated-Human-Rights-Act-JAMES-SLACK-offers-15-reasons.html

Daily Mail gave a list of topical cases to rile the readership, (above) but those wont help Cameron.

Thanks for the Express find. As a return favour you do realise that you can delete your cookies and get your 20 article access magically renewed. In the mean time here's a copy paste of the article.

Ukip embroiled in leadership row over use of millions of pounds of public money
Ukip sources say Mr Carswell wants to get himself sacked; Mr Carswell says it is 'utter nonsense'". Mr Carswell meets Mr Farage on Wednesday

The UK Independence Party has descended into open warfare as the party's only MP was accused of trying to get himself sacked in a row with Nigel Farage about the leadership of the party.
Ukip sources said the row with Douglas Carswell, who was upset that Mr Farage had continued as Ukip leader, had been engineered to force the party to sack him. Mr Carswell said this was "utter nonsense".
Matters are now set to come to a head on Wednesday when Mr Farage will meet Mr Carswell to discuss the way forward for Ukip.
A serious split threatened the party, with three Ukip MEPs, including the party's general election campaign chief Patrick O'Flynn, backing Mr Carswell in the row.
Mr O'Flynn said on Twitter it was "absurd" to suggest Mr Carswell would do anything "improper".
Steven Woolfe, the party's immigration spokesman, added that Mr Carswell "is a man of integrity and honour and that is to be respected".
The row centres on Mr Carswell's refusal to accept in full more than £3million of "Short Money" which it is entitled to under House of Commons rules.
Short Money is used to fund parties in Opposition. It is calculated at £16,689.13 for every seat won, plus £33.33 for every 200 votes gained by the party.
Ukip won 3.9million votes last Thursday, and can claim £650,000 a year or £3.25million over this five year parliament.
However, the cash has to be claimed by Mr Carswell, who has refused to accept the full amount, prompting a war of words between Mr Carswell and the party.
Mr Carswell met with a Ukip official on Monday who asked him to accept the cash to pay for 15 Ukip members of staff for his private office.
Mr Carswell is understood to have replied that this was “a completely inappropriate” way to spend the money and agreed only to accept an extra five staff.
Ukip sources said “there was no cajoling, it was an idea”. Mr Carswell was trying to get himself sacked over the row. The source said: “The point is that the Short Money is ours. It is not Douglas’s. It is for the UK Independence Party and it goes straight to the UK Independence Party.
“I think he is looking for an excuse for someone to sack him. Why else would you engage in a public blame war over what is effectively quite a minor detail?
“It is not the end of the world – we are not trying to force him to do anything. The money is not his to accept or reject.
“Douglas has put himself in a very difficult position – Douglas is basically saying ‘I don’t want to represent the four million Ukip voters out there’.”
Mr Carswell said it was “utter nonsense” that he wanted to get himself sacked or that he was upset he could not be leader.
He looked forward to meeting with Mr Farage on Wednesday when the pair would discuss “a number of things that had happened since the election”.
He told The Telegraph: “I am not an American senator for goodness sake. Why do party staffers think that I need 15 staff?
“That is may be because they want to be the staff – I am sorry, I am Gladstonian about this. It ain’t going to happen.”
He said he was thinking of “the pensioners in Clacton-on-Sea who have scrimped and saved £7.50 for a taxi fare”.
Mr Farage, who was in Brussels on Tuesday, denied that he had had a row with Mr Carswell. He said: “The party wants to represent the four million people that voted for us at the general election.
"We feel the Short Money would assist us in doing that and we will come to an agreement over this.”
Meanwhile, the repercussions of Mr Farage’s decision to stay on as Ukip leader four days were still being felt with Ukip's chairman Steve Crowther insisting that the party's ruling National Executive Committee had unanimously refused his resignation.
Mr Crowther said that there “was not the slightest suggestion that the NEC was anything other than unanimous in its wish for Nigel to withdraw his resignation”.
“He left the room while it was further discussed. I took the views of members and they unanimously asked him to remain as leader.
“The NEC is 100 per cent behind Nigel as we go forward into the referendum campaign which is already underway.”

Somebody poke me to make sure I'm not dreaming. The Express have a pro-election reform article.

‘We must ditch first-past-the-post system’ says Katie Ghose

The predictions were well out. The pollsters and Labour lost heavily while the bookies and Conservatives had a good result. But let’s reserve the worst verdict on Thursday’s election for our rotten voting system.

http://www.express.co.uk/comment/expresscomment/576118/Labour-Conservatives-Ukip-General-Election-Poll-first-past-the-post

Orlanth - How would the exception work exactly?

Also, most people I know would be happy with the various murderers being arrested if the colluders in the british military and those guilty of crimes within the british military were also arrested.

Never going to happen, so we are where we are.

It seems tone deaf to basically give the finger to the rest of Europe over this, but tone deaf is the best description of cameron's government I've seen.

There is one simple answer to the issue of EU laws being passed. The British Government replies... "make me".

Very childish I know, but the principle is sound. What can they do? Invade? Issue a fine? (don't pay it, same response, what can they do?) I think the French have done this a number of times.

If we only do this once in a while on the big issues then I'm sure Brussels will be annoyed with us, but will end up letting it slide. Obviously if we do it all the time they would likely kick us out, but I'm sure just saying no every now and then would work.

 George Spiggott wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
As a political stink Brady has potential...

Can you just accept that he was a really bad example and he isn't getting out, especially not as a result of EU law.

I really do think you miss my point, of course Brady isnt getting out. But if the ECHR tries to overrule th Home Secretaries right to impose life tariffs aided by the Human Rights Act then the life tariffs will be up for question.
The ECHR demanded prisoners get the vote, the UK has refused to implement this and is tying the courts up in red tape to do so.
Likewise Brady is goinng nowhere.
However should Strassbourg rule against life tariffs his name will be amongst many which would be up for review, and that is enough of an outrage to boil the blood of the middle and working class alike.

 George Spiggott wrote:

Thanks for the Express find. As a return favour you do realise that you can delete your cookies and get your 20 article access magically renewed. In the mean time here's a copy paste of the article.

Will remember that, thanks.

As for the article. I don't see what Carswell is doing, UKIP is entitled to that money, and it isn't 'gravy train' money, its for basic expenses like salaries for staff. After all Carswell will be well paid, but many staff are volunteers, the short money will allow volunteer staff in UKIP to get paid work for the next five years.

 George Spiggott wrote:

Somebody poke me to make sure I'm not dreaming. The Express have a pro-election reform article.
‘We must ditch first-past-the-post system’ says Katie Ghose

Now Daily Express is the UKIP rag it wants what is best for UKIP. The proportional representation argument has always been partisan rather than based on voting ethics. Does it help my party? If yes, holler for, if no holler against.

 Orlanth wrote:

 George Spiggott wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
As a political stink Brady has potential...

Can you just accept that he was a really bad example and he isn't getting out, especially not as a result of EU law.

I really do think you miss my point, of course Brady isnt getting out. But if the ECHR tries to overrule th Home Secretaries right to impose life tariffs aided by the Human Rights Act then the life tariffs will be up for question.
The ECHR demanded prisoners get the vote, the UK has refused to implement this and is tying the courts up in red tape to do so.
Likewise Brady is goinng nowhere.
However should Strassbourg rule agaijnst life tariffs his name will be amongst many which would be up for review, and that is enough of an outrage to boil the blood of the middle and working class alike.

I think your getting angry about something you don't understand. The ECHR has not stopped people being held for the whole of their lives. It has not demanded that prisoners get the vote.

What it has done is said you cannot imprison someone for the whole of their life without review. You cannot lock someone up and throw away the key. It has said that you must set some date at which you must review the case and see if it is appropriate to release that person or not. If not you must then set a new date and see again then. This could go on for their whole life if they are never safe.

What it has said is that you cannot AUTOMATICALLY ban prisoners from voting. You can remove that right as part of a sentence, but you should not do it automatically.

What is unreasonable about that? I honestly can't see what is wrong with judges deciding to impose removal of voting as part of sentencing guidelines where appropriate or every prisoner having the right to have their case reviewed eventually. If anything the possibility of parole will make our prisons safer as no prisoner has nothing to lose.