[News] Nigel Farage and Reform

[TomandJerry]

Well the argument to keep him going is that introducing the death penalty is incredibly difficult to do without ignoring the huge mistakes made by the legal system.

The difficulty in making sure it is both appropriate and the judical system being absolutely sure they have the right person far out weighs the benefits.

Add into this the morality of taking a life in return for taking a life and you can only draw the conclusion that on balance it is a poor idea.

Unless you can add some benefits to that side of the ledger?

It's just difficult, because you could make a case for that certain individual.

But I do understand your points, and if ever put to a referendum I hugely doubt the majority would vote it in

 

[Pevenseagull]

And a dog won Britain's Got Talent.

In fairness it was talented.... Probably

 

[Pevenseagull]

At risk of derailing the last 4 pages of the argument, the ECHR isn't the reason why the death penalty was abolished. The death penalty was suspended in 1965 and later formally abolished without being reintroduced, and it was done by Act of Parliament.

There seems to be a belief that all our human rights are given by the ECHR and without them we would have nothing. We would be back to 1214 where the King has absolute power. This is not the case - certain of our human rights, eg. habeas corpus, are not even now part of the ECHR. France, for example, can keep crime suspects banged up without charge for years.

The UK for centuries has developed a human rights code that works. Even without the ECHR, it would work again.

1 Yes

2 good point

3 nah, the 'UK's centuries of successful human rights code ain't a thing

 

[Pevenseagull]

With regards the ECHR, the 2 European countries that are no longer members/ observant are Belarus and Russia.

I would like to live in a country that observes and legislates human rights in line with the countries that aren't reigned over by Putin.


I'm a bit picky about that kind of thing.


I reckon he's a bit dodgy.


I'm probably being spectacularly naive here.

 

[darkwolf666]

Do you consider Japan as a civilised country?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-68090388

In this instance, no. Clearly having the death penalty isn’t a deterrent there either, as 98 prisoners have been executed since 2000 and another 107 are currently on death row! So it’s purely about revenge dressed as justice.

It’s funny, you used the often biblical quote* “eye for an eye”, but yet happily ignore the Sixth Commandment, thou shalt not kill… see, even the bible realises you can’t have it both ways.


* I am aware that eye for an eye predates the bible by several centuries!

 

[Bodian]

Perhaps that's one angle, another is an eye for an eye, some people might feel more at peace once due process has been carried

Presumably to be logically applied to bring peace to victims, your 'eye for an eye' principle would also have to extend to other crimes.

How would rapists / sex-offenders (especially child sex-offenders) be punished? What about manslaughter - would you have to then 'accidentally' impose a death penalty on the offender? And if someone was convicted of GBH, would you be recommending that they simply get duffed up outside the court instead of sent to jail? And so on.

 

[TomandJerry]

Presumably to be logically applied to bring peace to victims, your 'eye for an eye' principle would also have to extend to other crimes.

How would rapists / sex-offenders (especially child sex-offenders) be punished? What about manslaughter - would you have to then 'accidentally' impose a death penalty on the offender? And if someone was convicted of GBH, would you be recommending that they simply get duffed up outside the court instead of sent to jail? And so on.

Rapist's and sex offenders seemingly are to be put under chemical castration.

My point is that it should be reserved for the most horrific crimes

 

[Machiavelli]

Honest man of the people. He really understands their concerns:

Nigel Farage said he’d ‘bought a house’ in Clacton – it’s actually owned by his girlfriend

Reform UK leader said he’d ‘exchanged contracts’ to buy property last November, but it’s in name of Laure Ferrari

www.theguardian.com

 

[Randy McNob]

Again, I wouldn't vote to leave the ECHR unless it was copied word for word into a British bill of human rights, so the answer would be none

The overiding point of ECHR law is that it protects the public from individual states taking away people's human rights. That's why our govt and any other govt in the civilised world are blocked whenever they try and infringe an individual's human rights.

Human rights is not a optional thing a state can simply disregard or chose it's own version of just because it doesn't like abiding by the rules. The idea you can 'leave' (?) the ECHR, have your own bill of rights or even have a public vote to give them up is illogical and quite simply absurd

 

[TomandJerry]

The overiding point of ECHR law is that it protects the public from individual states taking away people's human rights. That's why our govt and any other govt in the civilised world are blocked whenever they try and infringe an individual's human rights.

Human rights is not a optional thing a state can simply disregard or chose it's own version of just because it doesn't like abiding by the rules. The idea you can 'leave' (?) the ECHR, have your own bill of rights or even have a public vote to give them up is illogical and quite simply absurd

The idea that you can't hold a vote on the ECHR membership is anti democratic, surely?

 

[Bodian]

The idea that you can't hold a vote on the ECHR membership is anti democratic, surely?

But you're struggling to explain what the benefits would be of leaving ECHR. So how would a vote work if no-one can actually explain this? We'd just have another bunch of lies and false promises like we had with Brexit.

 

[TomandJerry]

But you're struggling to explain what the benefits would be of leaving ECHR. So how would a vote work if no-one can actually explain this? We'd just have another bunch of lies and false promises like we had with Brexit.

From all the noise that was made by the Conservatives, at the time, it would make deporting people easier

Also Sunak calling them foreign courts didn't help

 

[Bodian]

From all the noise that was made by the Conservatives, at the time, it would make deporting people easier

Also Sunak calling them foreign courts didn't help

So, is that the reason you would scrap ECHR? To make deporting people easier.

What about any other things that might be lost along the way?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

From all the noise that was made by the Conservatives, at the time, it would make deporting people easier

Also Sunak calling them foreign courts didn't help

Sunak lied because it isn’t a foreign court. Boris Johnson’s meternal grandfather was president for 10 years, and one of the judges for 20 years.

All of this information is widely available but you are coming across as an irritating child with whatabout this and whatabout that. Find out for yourself and then debate it.

 

[TomandJerry]

So, is that the reason you would scrap ECHR? To make deporting people easier.

What about any other things that might be lost along the way?

Again, I wouldn't vote to leave the ECHR because I wouldn't trust Farage's government to be in charge of my human right

We also have the Irish issue

But for many, they see deportation as the main barrier - and you can blame the Conservatives for that

 

[TomandJerry]

Sunak lied because it isn’t a foreign court. Boris Johnson’s meternal grandfather was president for 10 years, and one of the judges for 20 years.

All of this information is widely available but you are coming across as an irritating child with whatabout this and whatabout that. Find out for yourself and then debate it.

I didn't ask any questions, so I'm not sure what point you are trying to make other than try label someone as an irritating child?

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Rapist's and sex offenders seemingly are to be put under chemical castration.

My point is that it should be reserved for the most horrific crimes

1. Maybe. It depends.
2. Why? Why not reserve torture for the most serious cases? Slow torture to death. Over a period of months.

The answer is that laws protect civilized norms.
We draw the line where we define civilized norms.
You don't kill people 'just because' we are very very cross and upset.
I think @Bodian already had a go at explaining.

I appreciate that this is not a straightforward and obvious equation.
I have a simple mantra. Killing is wrong. That includes state killing. But war is self defense.

 

[WATFORD zero]

The idea that you can't hold a vote on the ECHR membership is anti democratic, surely?

Well whether you really are someone who struggles so much with the whole 'politics' thing that they struggle to understand and have to have it explained repeatedly, almost on an hourly basis why Reform's policies won't solve your issues, backed up by the the hourly 'headlines' that you quote, normally with no source. (Despite being reminded repeatedly).

Or whether you are just a simple troll.

Over 300 posts in under 3 weeks on a single thread certainly deserves recognition, regardless

 

[TomandJerry]

1. Maybe. It depends.
2. Why? Why not reserve torture for the most serious cases? Slow torture to death. Over a period of months.

The answer is that laws protect civilized norms.
We draw the line where we define civilized norms.
You don't kill people 'just because' we are very very cross and upset.
I think @Bodian already had a go at explaining.

I appreciate that this is not a straightforward and obvious equation.
I have a simple mantra. Killing is wrong. That includes state killing. But war is self defense.

I think we can all agree killing is wrong, and between you and me I'd love to see a world where murder didn't happen, but, unfortunately we have an absolute minority who are hell bent are causing as much death and destruction as possible with no recourse or remorse.

To then go on a life long mission of hurting prison guards, in my opinion, shouldn't be tolerated.

 

[dsr-burnley]

The overiding point of ECHR law is that it protects the public from individual states taking away people's human rights. That's why our govt and any other govt in the civilised world are blocked whenever they try and infringe an individual's human rights.

Human rights is not a optional thing a state can simply disregard or chose it's own version of just because it doesn't like abiding by the rules. The idea you can 'leave' (?) the ECHR, have your own bill of rights or even have a public vote to give them up is illogical and quite simply absurd

But it doesn't protect the individual members of the public from having their human rights taken away. Like this child molestor who has had convictions for sex with minors and indecent assault, in 2008 and 2013. When it comes to locking him away from his (and other people's) children, there is no problem. Until it comes to deporting him, and then there isa problem because it has now become his human right ot be near his own (and other people's) children.

How can it be a matter of absolute principle that a criminal can be deprived of his liberty via imprisonment, (because the freedom to roam the streets of Britain is a human right that can be overridden) but he cannot be deprived of his temporary right to stay in this country (because freedom to roam the streets of Britain is absolute and must not be overridden)?