Mecky Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Wrong. Right. Right. Say it again: there is NO SUCH THING as 'international law'. It is not wrong at all. It's called the European convention of Human Rights (Not to be confused with the European Court of Human Rights) and the UK is in Europe. Do you understand the concept of international pressure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kat59 Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 human rights is a farce . It seems to me it is geared up not for the victims but for the perpitrators Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balpin Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 Theoretically it can't, because any Act that revokes it would be in breach of it and would not be legally valid. Thats some catch, that Catch 22 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ab6262 Posted October 3, 2011 Share Posted October 3, 2011 It has repeatedly been subject to a lawsuit, but the courts - I believe - have always refused to hear the case and let the Government have its way. There is no question that it is unconstitutional. The 1911 Act - passed in both houses and therefore legal - states that it (the 1911 Act) can be used to bypass the House of Lords, but only on issues that do not affect the 1911 Act itself. The 1949 Act directly alters that 1911 Act, and so cannot be legally valid unless it clears the Lords. It never did: the 1911 Act was (illegally) used to bypass them. you have way too much time on your hands you need to get out more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 Wrong. Right. Right. Say it again: there is NO SUCH THING as 'international law'. You do surprise me, Jeffrey. From your Sig I'm aware that you are 'one of my learned friends' but you are either being deliberately inflammatory, or you've overlooked some of that which you were taught in Constitutional and Administrative Law. 'International Law' certainly exists, but it is nothing like - for instance - the Criminal law. Break the criminal law and (and get caught) and you will probably be held accountable. The room for negotiation (usually a guilty plea to a lesser charge) is limited. It doesn't work that way with International law. International law is a system of treaties and agreements which, although the various parties may claim are binding, change with the wind. Two examples (big country and little country.) The US does not recognise the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague. So what is the rest of the world going to do about it. Not a lot. The UN tells Kosovo (a part of Serbia) that it has to hand over most of its territory to Albania (Well, to Albanian government.) What is Serbia going to do about it? - Do what it's told. International law comprises a set of agreements and treaties devised by diplomats. Should a country which has signed up for a particular agreement decide to renege on the deal, then there are no (enforceable) penalties, save diplomacy. War - as Carl von Clausewitz reminded us - is diplomacy by other means. When countries renege on their treaties and commitments. Ordinary diplomacy is the obvious answer. War in Europe is highly unlikely, but there are indeed many stages between 'Jaw Jaw' and 'War War' and - I suggest - should the UK decide to withdraw completely from the EU (A possible decision) 'Jaw Jaw' would set the relationship. - War is unlikely. It's all very well to say: "We'll withdraw from the EU, turn the clock back to 1975 and join a Common Market along the lines of the one Ted Heath pretended to get us into." But agreements have two sides. What if the other side said: "Bugger off! We're imposing a 40% [for example] tariff on your exports to us and we're not going to do you any favours on imports (especially imports of food.) What then? Would many people in the EU starve because they couldn't buy British food at EU prices? What would happen in the UK? (Which imports 40% of its food?) What would happen to food prices? How about gas prices? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 How strange. The UK proposed the creation of the European Convention of Human Rights at the end of the second world war – largely at the suggestion of Winston Churchill. The Council was guided by British MP and lawyer Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, the Chair of the Assembly's Committee on Legal and Administrative Questions. The UK signed up on 3 September 1953. I doubt Sir Winston Churchill and Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe ever envisaged it would be used to prevent the UK deporting people that have or would do harm to our society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 But if you read the act, you will find that there are numerous exemptions which would allow the UK to deport such people. It's not (in this case) the law which is flawed, but rather the (mis)interpretation of the law. Both the ECHR and its young sister (The UK Act) provide ample grounds to deport EU citizens. 'Threat to society' being but one. 'Threat to society' (we don't even have to talk about 'War on turr') is (IMO) an under-utilised argument and could be interpreted to mandate deportation for anybody who has not proven him/herself to be 'rehabilitated [and no longer a threat to society] There is no shortage of erudite and eloquent lawyers who makw inpassioned and legally-compelling speeches on behalf of their clients. That is their job and they would be culpable should they fail to make the best case for their clients. The 'other side' doesn't appear to be so highly-skilled. Whose fault is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 You do surprise me, Jeffrey. From your Sig I'm aware that you are 'one of my learned friends' but you are either being deliberately inflammatory, or you've overlooked some of that which you were taught in Constitutional and Administrative Law. 'International Law' certainly exists, but it is nothing like - for instance - the Criminal law. Break the criminal law and (and get caught) and you will probably be held accountable. The room for negotiation (usually a guilty plea to a lesser charge) is limited. It doesn't work that way with International law. International law is a system of treaties and agreements which, although the various parties may claim are binding, change with the wind. Two examples (big country and little country.) The US does not recognise the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague. So what is the rest of the world going to do about it. Not a lot. The UN tells Kosovo (a part of Serbia) that it has to hand over most of its territory to Albania (Well, to Albanian government.) What is Serbia going to do about it? - Do what it's told. International law comprises a set of agreements and treaties devised by diplomats. Should a country which has signed up for a particular agreement decide to renege on the deal, then there are no (enforceable) penalties, save diplomacy. War - as Carl von Clausewitz reminded us - is diplomacy by other means. When countries renege on their treaties and commitments. Ordinary diplomacy is the obvious answer. War in Europe is highly unlikely, but there are indeed many stages between 'Jaw Jaw' and 'War War' and - I suggest - should the UK decide to withdraw completely from the EU (A possible decision) 'Jaw Jaw' would set the relationship. - War is unlikely. It's all very well to say: "We'll withdraw from the EU, turn the clock back to 1975 and join a Common Market along the lines of the one Ted Heath pretended to get us into." But agreements have two sides. What if the other side said: "Bugger off! We're imposing a 40% [for example] tariff on your exports to us and we're not going to do you any favours on imports (especially imports of food.) What then? Would many people in the EU starve because they couldn't buy British food at EU prices? What would happen in the UK? (Which imports 40% of its food?) What would happen to food prices? How about gas prices? World Trade Organisation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 human rights is a farce . It seems to me it is geared up not for the victims but for the perpitrators That's because you just don't understand it properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balpin Posted October 4, 2011 Share Posted October 4, 2011 human rights is a farce . It seems to me it is geared up not for the victims but for the perpitrators As with all open ended legislation it has become a stick to beat us with. A far worse act than this is the HSWA. This has become a tool of terror in the workplace. Management and their jumped up creeps are using in an iniquitous fashion to deal with people. It has gone, in less than 30 years, from a tool to defend the working man, to one of job creation for creeps and a management tool for making life impossible for anyone wanting to get on with their work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.