Ukip

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If we had to pay compensation to UK prisoners because of an EU court ruling, the uproar would be a one way ticket out of the EU. There would also be other countries effected, so it would seem somewhat silly for the ECHR to go against too many peoples wishes.

IMO.

The court is there to rule on legal compliance not to pander to people's wishes.

Sampong wrote: »

OR we could get out of the EU so that they have no chance of appealing to the European Court of Human Rights for compensation..........

Wouldn't most people be glad that the UK government were following the rule of law?

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

The court is there to rule on legal compliance not to pander to people's wishes.

Good thing I never said they were then, isn't it!

Wouldn't most people be glad that the UK government were following the rule of law?

Well I have my thoughts on this, but you tell me....would they? I think deep down you know the answer.

N1AK

Sampong wrote:

Because I do support taking away the right of Prisoners to vote. And it's not a redundant argument is it.

I said your argument that people are discouraged from re-offending would be redundant if you didn't believe it. You attributed redundancy to the wrong point and without the qualifier.

I was emphasizing the point that crime should be dealt with robustly. Clearly you want to misrepresent what I have said.

I'm not misrepresenting it. Either you were making comments directly in response to me that didn't relate to the subject we had been discussing or you were equating removing the right to vote with making punishment 'a slap on the wrist'.


I haven't tried to, nor have I in fact, tried to misconstrue anything that you have said. It is clear that you either aren't properly considering points contrary to your own opinion or aren't capable of effectively understanding them.

antrobus

Sampong wrote: »

OR we could get out of the EU so that they have no chance of appealing to the European Court of Human Rights for compensation..........

On a point of order, the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU. The ECHR was established by the Council of Europe, which is an entirely different body, of which the UK has been a member since its foundation in 1949.

Getting out of the EU and getting out of the ECHR are two quite different things.

Sampong

N1AK wrote: »

I said your argument that people are discouraged from re-offending would be redundant if you didn't believe it. You attributed redundancy to the wrong point and without the qualifier.



I'm not misrepresenting it. Either you were making comments directly in response to me that didn't relate to the subject we had been discussing or you were equating removing the right to vote with making punishment 'a slap on the wrist'.


I haven't tried to, nor have I in fact, tried to misconstrue anything that you have said. It is clear that you either aren't properly considering points contrary to your own opinion or aren't capable of effectively understanding them.

Oh right ok then.

I think....

rabbit_burrow

armour wrote: »

After 6 pages of carp about reaching for a phone/ giving a nazi salute a sensible post outlining UKIPs immigration policy. Whilst I don't agree with all of the policy, I'd be interested to know, Rabbit Burrow, why point 8 makes you speechless.
Therea May has plenty to say about it;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/08/theresa-may-human-rights-abu-qatada
Perhaps some people should consider the 'human right' of someone to NOT be (falsely) branded a racist.

It makes me speechless because not only does it cover many aspects that we would benefit from, but also that they are using the deportation of foreign terrorists/suspects as a selling point for doing so. From what can be seen from the media, there are far more 'home-grown' terrorists to foreign terrorists here, and a removal of the rights as a whole could actually put us in more danger.

I am truly gobsmacked by it.

rabbit_burrow

Sampong wrote: »

It should be noted that there wouldn't be a void in legislation which would protect people's human and civil rights - but we would be withdrawing from flawed legislation which comes from the EU. Legislation which as, Theresa May points out in that video - has cost the taxpayer £1.7 million.

You cannot guarantee that.

Graham_Devon

antrobus wrote: »

On a point of order, the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU. The ECHR was established by the Council of Europe, which is an entirely different body, of which the UK has been a member since its foundation in 1949.

Getting out of the EU and getting out of the ECHR are two quite different things.

Don't think it's quite as simple as that anymore...

The accession of the European Union (EU) to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) constitutes a major step in the development of human rights in Europe. Discussed since the late 1970s, the accession became a legal obligation under the Treaty of Lisbon, which entered into force on 1 December 2009 (see its Article 6, paragraph 2). The legal basis for the accession of the EU is provided for by Article 59, paragraph 2 ECHR (“the European Union may accede to this Convention”), as amended by Protocol No. 14 to the ECHR which entered into force on 1 June 2010. (more...)

N1AK

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Would those who support the vote continue to support the vote if this was the outcome? Based on the dislike of people voting for UKIP I'd find it hard to believe?

I can't speak for anyone else however I don't care who prisoners want to vote for just that they are allowed to do so. I don't like it that anyone wants to vote BNP but not liking something isn't always a reason to try and stop it.

You could stop the old voting and get less racist policy. Stop the uneducated voting and get less BNP votes. Stop my fellow Northerners and get fewer BNP votes. I wouldn't suggest any of these on those grounds though

Sampong

rabbit_burrow wrote: »

You cannot guarantee that.

Neither can Theresa May, but common sense would dictate she isn't suggesting just to do away with the legislation and leave nothing in it's place.

And neither can anyone else meaningfully suggest that repealing the act would result in the loss of human rights.