British Bill of Rights - what do you want in it

[firemanbob]

If not why do you think they would need/retain it?

 

Once its been taken it might as well be retained, and they will keep it for the same reason they keep the DNA of people found guilty of a crime.

[Cyclone]

So by acknowledging that "best" needs defining, you can see that there are different answers for "best for the country" and "best for any given individual".

You also accept that members of the public may not be sufficiently informed to have a valid opinion (which won't stop them of course).

[firemanbob]

It has not been unknown for the police to plant evidence in order to 'fit someone up' for a crime they did not commit.

 

I worked in a job which brought me into constant contact with the police for over 33 years.

 

A number of them have admitted to me that they have known it happen and not infrequently.

 

So the answer to your question is plant it.

 

I assume that the DNA sequence is stored on a computer database so it wouldn't be possible to plant DNA evidence at the scene of a crime.

[Zamo]

How about the retention of DNA samples for people who have never been charged with or committed a crime, or those who were charged and acquitted?

 

The ECHR has forced the government to stop doing that, and it was entirely right to do so. The government had no intentions of stopping until they were so forced though.

 

I'm not saying it is all bad. I was injecting some perspective because others had said there was nothing wrong with it.

 

I agree that 'privacy' is one area where UK law is weak and would need to be strengthen if we were to withdraw from the ECHR. I don't like it when politician seek to take away our freedoms and try to justify it by saying it is for our own protection but we secured those freedoms without the help of a ECHR and we can fight these encroachments without it too.

 

These examples of interpretation of the ECHR correspond entirely to the point of Magilla which you quoted?

 

There are undoubtedly instances where laymen have misinterpreted the ECHR but the examples I gave are cases that have gone before the courts where the interpretations have been upheld. Are you really saying these are still just interpretation niggles that will work themselves out given time? They have had years and years to address the niggles... how long are we suppose to give before it becomes legitimate for us to have the hump?

[firemanbob]

So by acknowledging that "best" needs defining, you can see that there are different answers for "best for the country" and "best for any given individual".

You also accept that members of the public may not be sufficiently informed to have a valid opinion (which won't stop them of course).

I said that several pages ago.

[Cyclone]

Clearly it wouldn't be the right policy for the country if the population don't want that policy implementing, politicians serve the people not the country, because clearly the best thing for the country is no people. The other problem with your question is that the electorate and politicians have different opinions on what is right for the country, every party wants to do something different because they think it is the right think to do. .

 

So it clearly follows that an unpopular policy (austerity for example) can be the best thing for the country, even though the majority (of the under informed and unqualified public) don't agree.

 

Popularity is not a measure that allows how necessary or beneficial a policy is to be judged. It doesn't measure anything except popularity.

[firemanbob]

So it clearly follows that an unpopular policy (austerity for example) can be the best thing for the country, even though the majority (of the under informed and unqualified public) don't agree.

 

Popularity is not a measure that allows how necessary or beneficial a policy is to be judged. It doesn't measure anything except popularity.

 

That depends how you define best for the country, what is best for the country is going to be different depending on who you ask. Your ideas of what is best for the country is likley to be very different to my ideas about what is best for the country, so is there actually anyone one thing that everyone could agree is best for the country?

[Cyclone]

Yes it is. And politicians are elected to do what is best, which may well not coincide with what is popular.

What they actually do, is try to get re-elected, and the policies to achieve that often do not coincide with what is best.

 

Best is subjective of course, which makes it even harder to judge.

[L00b]

I prefer the idea of just voting for British MPs and letting them get on with running the UK, I'm happy for German/French ect. MPs to run their respective countries how they see fit and I'm happy for UK and German/French Mp's to talk to each other and come to agreements over issues that concern everyone,

Erm...that's pretty much how everything is working right now

But I don't want British Mp's being overruled by German/French Mp's.

British MPs cannot be overruled by German/French MPs, but the UK Gvt (the executive, not the legislature - you know difference, right?) is sometimes (rarely) overruled by the ECJ or the ECHR, to the exact same extent as the the ECJ or the ECHR overrule

the German/French Gvts (respectively).

 

Do you actually know anything about the topic of this discussion?

There are undoubtedly instances where laymen have misinterpreted the ECHR but the examples I gave are cases that have gone before the courts where the interpretations have been upheld.

Meaning the ECHR upheld the UK Court decision? So what's the problem?

Are you really saying these are still just interpretation niggles that will work themselves out given time?

Put aside the specific examples you raised for a minute (they are populist baiting material and statistically insignificant), the above is precisely how law 'works'. Including UK law itself. And has, for centuries.

 

A legal text is promulgated, a first case comes up before the Courts under it, a first interpretation is handed down, a next case comes up, there's a twist in the facts of the case wherein the first interpretation "doesn't fit" and a next interpretation is handed down, et bis repetita. The body of decisions and interpretations over time is called Case Law. And it changes all the time, a bit here and a bit there, a case at a time.

 

I am led to believe the UK invented this fair, balanced and quintessentially fundamental legal principle, actually

Edited October 6, 2014 by L00b

[Zamo]

They be the MEPs directly elected by the European people. Yes, that includes British voters.

 

The problem is we've never been asked whether we want to join a United States of Europe and therefore do not see EU laws as democratic decisions that we should just accept.