• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

A Political Thread pt. 2

Gather App
Blunkett and now Jack Straw turning on the ECHR. Talk about doing Starmer at the knees.

When now two known Labour home secs are suggesting it. More fuel to the fire. I don't think you could accused either of being right wing.

"There is no doubt at all that the convention – and crucially its interpretation – is now being used in ways which were never, ever intended when the instrument was drafted in the late 40s and early 50s," Straw said.
 
Saintjay said:
Blunkett and now Jack Straw turning on the ECHR. Talk about doing Starmer at the knees.

When now two known Labour home secs are suggesting it. More fuel to the fire. I don't think you could accused either of being right wing.

"There is no doubt at all that the convention – and crucially its interpretation – is now being used in ways which were never, ever intended when the instrument was drafted in the late 40s and early 50s," Straw said.
Click to expand...
What parts of the ECHR do they object to and why?

I'm all up for redrafting it with other members. Withdrawing is insane.
 
ncurd said:
What parts of the ECHR do they object to and why?

I'm all up for redrafting it with other members. Withdrawing is insane.
Click to expand...
Blunkett suggests temporary suspension. Straw that it should be amended to so that UK courts do not have to take into account the ECHR.

Both ideas seem like something Farage would suggest.

Allegedly the home office are looking at instructing judges to tighten up on the interpretation of article 8.

Government spokesperson - We're currently examining Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights to give our courts the clarity they need so our immigration rules are respected."
 
Last edited:
Saintjay said:
Blunkett suggests temporary suspension. Straw that it should be amended to so that UK courts do not have to take into account the ECHR.

Both ideas seem like something Farage would suggest.
Click to expand...

I bet Farage will have those comments read out to him like a night time story while being tucked in tonight.

Certainly redrafting, article 3 is being abused, and id like to see 10 and 11 strengthened...

Pulling out is poor, I wouldnt be against suspension as a tactic to negotiate but thats about it.
 
Saintjay said:
Blunkett suggests temporary suspension. Straw that it should be amended to so that UK courts do not have to take into account the ECHR.

Both ideas seem like something Farage would suggest.

Allegedly the home office are looking at instructing judges to tighten up on the interpretation of article 8.

Government spokesperson - We're currently examining Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights to give our courts the clarity they need so our immigration rules are respected."
Click to expand...
I just looked up article 8, what's the issue with how its being interpreted?
 
ncurd said:
I just looked up article 8, what's the issue with how its being interpreted?
Click to expand...
No idea something to do with The chicken nugget debacle case according to the article I think.

Labours exact issue is one for them to answer.

observer.co.uk

Take tougher line on asylum human rights, judges told

Ministers will set out guidance on how judges use Article 8, which protects the right to family life
observer.co.uk observer.co.uk
 
Saintjay said:
No idea something to do with The chicken nugget debacle case according to the article I think.

Labours exact issue is one for them to answer.

observer.co.uk

Take tougher line on asylum human rights, judges told

Ministers will set out guidance on how judges use Article 8, which protects the right to family life
observer.co.uk observer.co.uk
Click to expand...
See this is my problem.

Where the detail great article 8 is an issue. What does it say?

"Article 8
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."

Its the one which basically says the government have no right unless they suspect you of breaking the law they can't interfere in your ****. This is a big one successive governments (both Labour and Tory) want to curb your freedom from government surveillance.

So again what guidance need changing and why? Alot of the time scrapping the ECHR appears to be ways government to infringe on rights you and I should both have by attacking people they don't like as an excuse.
 
Saintjay said:
No idea something to do with The chicken nugget debacle case according to the article I think.

Labours exact issue is one for them to answer.

observer.co.uk

Take tougher line on asylum human rights, judges told

Ministers will set out guidance on how judges use Article 8, which protects the right to family life
observer.co.uk observer.co.uk
Click to expand...

Holy **** i remember that case, about 3 /4 years ago lol

A man, who snuck into the UK 20 years previous, was caught smuggling and handling stolen goods, and had 300k seized and sentenced to 2 years.

He avoided deportation because his 10 year old son didnt communicate his emotions well, but didnt like foreign chicken nuggets hahahah
 
ncurd said:
See this is my problem.

Where the detail great article 8 is an issue. What does it say?

"Article 8
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."

Its the one which basically says the government have no right unless they suspect you of breaking the law they can't interfere in your ****. This is a big one successive governments (both Labour and Tory) want to curb your freedom from government surveillance.

So again what guidance need changing and why? Alot of the time scrapping the ECHR appears to be ways government to infringe on rights you and I should both have by attacking people they don't like as an excuse.
Click to expand...
Which relates back to my point doesn't seem very Blunkett or Straw.

I'm not asking for it to be changed so don't know the answer
 

Similar threads

Which Tyler
Proposed law changes - 2024 edition
Replies
9
Views
4K
AlRums
AlRums
JohnKA
ARK - The State
Replies
1
Views
3K
JohnKA
JohnKA
RoosTah
Is South African Rugby afraid of Rugby League?
2
Replies
26
Views
7K
TRF_stormer2010
TRF_stormer2010
snoopy snoopy dog dog
Brett Gosper: 3 Year Residency Rule to be changed?
2 3
Replies
44
Views
11K
Bruce_ma gooshvili
Bruce_ma gooshvili
TRF Mr Fish
All Black Watch - Week 2
Replies
10
Views
2K
TRF Mr Fish
TRF Mr Fish

Latest posts

Sponsored
UnlistMe
Back
Top