British Bill of Rights - what do you want in it

[tzijlstra]

Yes, I found it interesting that when I checked on the Irish/US treaty it was clear that those restrictions which I quoted only applied to non EU countries and that different rules apply when two EU members are involved.

 

To me that is acceptable in that as a member you have an input into the regulations and therefore to at least some degree they are your regulations.

 

However, allowing a foreign power who's laws you have no input into to apply any measure of unreciprocated control over your citizens is unacceptable as far as I'm concerned.

 

Do you have any idea how the Netherlands/USA extradition treaty operates in terms of even balance?

 

Not quite sure, although I do have the impression the Dutch just tell the US to go away when they feel there is an unreasonable demand. The Dutch aren't burdened by the false notion of a special relationship.

[firemanbob]

No they don't, not unless they don't make it a website and instead make it an internal system, which is entirely different. Providers have the opportunity to block sites, but it is incredibly complicated and only practised in countries with dubious human rights in the first place.

 

 

Its odd that because a Google search does say that a website can be created for specific country access only and that others countries can be blocked.

[tzijlstra]

Good luck trying it out Bobanova, it won't work.

[mjw47]

Not quite sure, although I do have the impression the Dutch just tell the US to go away when they feel there is an unreasonable demand. The Dutch aren't burdened by the false notion of a special relationship.

 

Quite right too, I'm not bothered about Britain or Ireland - which are both my countries - being seen as anything overly special. Both have 'interesting' histories, but the main priority now for both of them should be the welfare of their citizens.

 

Having said which, I would like both of them to have some self respect in their international dealings.

 

The so called 'special relationship' is an embarrassment, the Americans are abusing it and laughing at us for being so needy and gullible.

[barleycorn]

The service he provided was in Amsterdam and the only way of accessing that service was for you to go to Amsterdam, so it isn't comparable to someone providing an internet based service that is accessible in the other countries. If he opened a shop in the UK then he should be obliged to follow UK laws.

It is exactly comparable. The only way to access his website was to visit a server based in the UK, not the US.

I don't know much about website construction and accessibility but from what I can gather it isn't impossible to construct a website that is only accessible from within the country of operation. So it would appear that he could have easily prevented American users from accessing his site.

 

Choose which countries you want to ban and any visitors from that country get a HTTP/403 error with the standard message "Forbidden - Users from your country are not permitted to browse this site."

There is no legal requirement for UK based website operators to make their websites inaccessible to foreign countries. If a foreign country has a problem with a UK based website then it is up to them to block it.

 

One further question: If I was to create a UK based website which blasphemed against Allah which was then viewed in Syria should I be deported to be beheaded?

 

jb

[Jeffrey Shaw]

1. There is no such thing as 'human rights'.

2. UK/common law: one has freedom to do anything unless the law prohibits/restricts it.

3. Most other systems/civil law: the law prohibits everything, so no-one has any rights unless the law confers them.

[Harleyman]

Quite right too, I'm not bothered about Britain or Ireland - which are both my countries - being seen as anything overly special. Both have 'interesting' histories, but the main priority now for both of them should be the welfare of their citizens.

 

Having said which, I would like both of them to have some self respect in their international dealings.

 

The so called 'special relationship' is an embarrassment, the Americans are abusing it and laughing at us for being so needy and gullible.

 

The British government should get it's act together and fully accept membership of the European Union instead of acting like the proverbial virgin who cant make her mind up to hop into bed and lose it or just hold out a bit longer.

But then you have to convince a majority of the populace that being part of the EU is the wisest course and forget the silly idea that the UK should get out of the EU and go it alone. Any promises of a national referendum on the matter is just pandering to the misinformed and the ignorant

 

I fail to see how the Americans are "abusing the relationship" I would say that the west and the U.N are abusing the United States. They expect the US to contribute the main bulk of manpower when conflict breaks out. Even when it comes to airstrikes in this latest conflict with ISIS the UK and France

could cough up no more than a couple of fighter planes each as their contribution to the operation

 

Obama is often accused of being something of an isolationist but not enough of one in my view. The only relationship the US needs with the EU is a trade agreement which would benefit both sides. Nothing more than that

Edited October 13, 2014 by Harleyman

[Jeffrey Shaw]

Eh? Harleyman: none of your post addresses the thread's question, you know.

[mjw47]

 

I fail to see how the Americans are "abusing the relationship" I would say that the west and the U.N are abusing the United States. They expect the US to contribute the main bulk of manpower when conflict breaks out.

 

The USA is abusing the relationship by taking advantage of the UK politicians obsessive desire to 'sit at the top table' and ' hang around with the big boys'.

 

Britain appears eager to jump and only ask 'how high?' whenever America tells it.

 

It is entirely up to the US as to whether or not it decides to take part in conflicts, and it invariably only does so ( like Empires before it ) when it is to its personal advantage.

 

Britain is no longer a world power, we can no longer afford it, who cares?

 

Britain had it's time as top dog, it's over, it comes to every so called major country, it will come to the US.

 

The secret is to recognize when it happens, and accept it with good grace and start to concentrate on the welfare of your citizens, and stop wasting money trying to 'keep in with the in crowd'.

 

We need a bill of rights in order to shift some of the power slightly toward the individual citizen, and away from the 'Elite'.

 

Unlike America, which was formed as a Republic governed by the people for the people, this country was formed by the Elite ( Monarchy, Aristocracy, Landowners and Bankers ) at the expense of the people.

Edited October 21, 2014 by mjw47

[Harleyman]

The USA is abusing the relationship by taking advantage of the UK politicians obsessive desire to 'sit at the top table' and ' hang around with the big boys'.

 

Britain appears eager to jump and only ask 'how high?' whenever America tells it.

 

It is entirely up to the US as to whether or not it decides to take part in conflicts, and it invariably only does so ( like Empires before it ) when it is to its personal advantage.

 

Britain is no longer a world power, we can no longer afford it, who cares?

 

Britain had it's time as top dog, it's over, it comes to every so called major country, it will come to the US.

 

The secret is to recognize when it happens, and accept it with good grace and start to concentrate on the welfare of your citizens, and stop wasting money trying to 'keep in with the in crowd'.

 

We need a bill of rights in order to shift some of the power slightly toward the individual citizen, and away from the 'Elite'.

 

Unlike America, which was formed as a Republic governed by the people for the people, this country was formed by the Elite ( Monarchy, Aristocracy, Landowners and Bankers ) at the expense of the people.

 

I agree with you. I would vote for an isolationist Presidential candidate if such a candidate runs on the 2016 ticket. The US has depleted it's wealth fighting wars all over the place since 1945, it's youth lying in graves all over Europe from 2 world wars. It is time to start taking care of Americans at home and there are plenty of deserving cases.

 

The military industrial complex needs to be gradually replaced by one focused entirely on domestic high tech and industrial production, a return to jobs being kept within the country instead of being farmed out to such as China.

 

All the US needs is a high tech defence system and with enough power to quickly knock out any country which would try to harm it.

 

In raw materials and oil the US is completely self sufficient and in conjunction with Canada, it's biggest trading partner it needs nothing from the rest of the world.

 

That's how I wish it would be but sadly after 70 years it's been tied to the apron strings of Europe, South Korea and Japan and there' doesn't seem to be any prospect of getting rid of it.

 

The western Euro countries and now the former Soviet bloc countries look to the US to take the lead whenever a threat to peace occurs. The EU should be capable of forming it's own defence force. I don't see why the US should so frequently be at loggerheads with Russia . Ukraine is not our problem. If it's a problem for the rest of Europe then let them deal with it

 

If there is widespread dissatisfaction with the status quo in the UK then elect radicals who would push for a new form of government. So long as these radicals are not just a bunch of unrealistic idiots it would be a first step in gradually over time transferring power away from what you call the Elite.

 

I see a problem already though. It's not in the English psych to actively push for radical change. They just like to sit around and complain instead

Edited October 22, 2014 by Harleyman