[News] Nigel Farage and Reform

[Thunder Bolt]

Government <> judicial system

He’s being allowed due process under international human rights law and the latest appeal will be reheard because there’s a possibility the judge made an error.

People switching their support to a racist party because of things like this are on a slippery slope. Reform want to leave the ECHR and have said it’s the first thing they’ll do. A vote for Reform is a vote to strip those rights from every UK citizen.

But then, last summer we had people setting fire to hotels because they had foreign people in them. That’s how great this country is

The second thing Reform will do is remove the NHS to a lucrative insurance system. Insurances that put premiums up at every opportunity, that find clauses not to cover a particular ailment, and will be very profitable for the insurance companies.
Reform might say, it will be like Germany or France's insurance based health system but you can bet your house on it soon becoming more and more like America.

 

[nevergoagain]

They’re voting Reform because the judicial system (which is not, and never should be, forced into doing the Government’s bidding) throws up results they don’t like?

Yes. They see the governments of whatever flavour not changing the justice system correctly to address these issues. It's not just a simple "results they don't like" that's churlish. As for due process under ECHR I guess that's where our opinions differ. For me his Human Rights ended the moment he laid a finger on one of those girls and he shouldn't have been here to be able to do it again 5 years later.

 

[Scappa]

 

[A1X]

For me his Human Rights ended the moment he laid a finger on one of those girls and he shouldn't have been here to be able to do it again 5 years later.

Fortunately, we don't live in a society where people are deemed to lose their status as humans once found guilty of crimes. That way very, very dark things lie.

 

[nevergoagain]

Fortunately, we don't live in a society where people are deemed to lose their status as humans once found guilty of crimes. That way very, very dark things lie.

No point discussing any further with you then. I prefer to think of the victims and the potential future victims rather than some nonces human rights foreign or otherwise.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Government <> judicial system

He’s being allowed due process under international human rights law and the latest appeal will be reheard because there’s a possibility the judge made an error.

People switching their support to a racist party because of things like this are on a slippery slope. Reform want to leave the ECHR and have said it’s the first thing they’ll do. A vote for Reform is a vote to strip those rights from every UK citizen.

But then, last summer we had people setting fire to hotels because they had foreign people in them. That’s how great this country is

It isn't actually. British child molesters already have the right to live in Britain for the rest of their lives. Cases like this are about whether we should grant that right to foreign child molesters as well.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

No point discussing any further with you then. I prefer to think of the victims and the potential future victims rather than some nonces human rights foreign or otherwise.

Why did you feel the need to post nonces with foreign in the same sentence?

37% of sexual abuse before the age of 16 is by a family member, neighbour or acquaintance of a family.
This is mainly female victims whereas male victims are more likely to be from a person of authority such as a teacher doctor or youth worker (6%).

 

[nevergoagain]

Why did you feel the need to post nonces with foreign in the same sentence?

37% of sexual abuse before the age of 16 is by a family member, neighbour or acquaintance of a family.
This is mainly female victims whereas male victims are more likely to be from a person of authority such as a teacher doctor or youth worker (6%).

Perhaps because in the example I was using the offender was a nonce and foreign ?. Added or otherwise as I really don't give a toss what colour/nationality they are but we can't really deport British nonces can we. Is there anything else you'd like to get offended by ?.

 

[Berty23]

Yes. They see the governments of whatever flavour not changing the justice system correctly to address these issues. It's not just a simple "results they don't like" that's churlish. As for due process under ECHR I guess that's where our opinions differ. For me his Human Rights ended the moment he laid a finger on one of those girls and he shouldn't have been here to be able to do it again 5 years later.

Where do you draw the line for when people deserve to keep human rights?

Which crimes do you see as okay?

How certain do we need to be they did it before they lose human rights? (This is key because there was an example recently where someone wrongly sent to jail for decades was found not guilty).

It feels a very dangerous game to me to have politicians decide when human rights apply. I guess people who support withdrawing from ECHR assume it will never be them losing their rights. Here is a clue. We all would. So if a government of a different type came in is that fine?

 

[abc]

I wonder if he and his party be subject to the same anti-semitic smear campaign as Corbyn?

Corbyn is an out and anti semitic. There was no smear campaign.

 

[Randy McNob]

Where do you draw the line for when people deserve to keep human rights?

Which crimes do you see as okay?

How certain do we need to be they did it before they lose human rights? (This is key because there was an example recently where someone wrongly sent to jail for decades was found not guilty).

It feels a very dangerous game to me to have politicians decide when human rights apply. I guess people who support withdrawing from ECHR assume it will never be them losing their rights. Here is a clue. We all would. So if a government of a different type came in is that fine?

in a nutshell, it's a case of take an extreme example or the exeption rather the norm to argue something should be removed/scrapped/left and applied to everyone, so in this example some wrong'un has used his human rights protections therefore everyone should lose their human rights. That's what leaving the ECHR will mean. Just as they succesfully argued freedom of movement had a negative impact on immigration, the end result was every UK citizen lost their FOM (whilst net migration increased 4-fold)

 

[WATFORD zero]

in a nutshell, it's a case of take an extreme example or the exeption rather the norm to argue something should be removed/scrapped/left and applied to everyone, so in this example some wrong'un has used his human rights protections therefore everyone should lose their human rights. That's what leaving the ECHR will mean. Just as they succesfully argued freedom of movement had a negative impact on immigration, the end result was every UK citizen lost their FOM (whilst net migration increased 4-fold)

Shirley you're not suggesting that voting for 'The Leopards take away their Human Rights party' would have totally foreseen, predictable and blindingly obvious repercussions on those who voted for them yet again

 

[nevergoagain]

Where do you draw the line for when people deserve to keep human rights?

Which crimes do you see as okay?

How certain do we need to be they did it before they lose human rights? (This is key because there was an example recently where someone wrongly sent to jail for decades was found not guilty).

It feels a very dangerous game to me to have politicians decide when human rights apply. I guess people who support withdrawing from ECHR assume it will never be them losing their rights. Here is a clue. We all would. So if a government of a different type came in is that fine?

You do love asking questions, not so good at answering them.

Where do YOU draw the line ?, do you think people should be able to endlessly play the system launching appeal after appeal until they find a judge who will allow it?

You never did answer my old question, what crimes do YOU think should warrant immediate or post sentence deportation for foreign nationals? Murder ?, paedophilia ?, robbery/theft ?, fraud ? drug supply/dealing ?, human trafficking ? burglary ?

Do you think the rights of an individual should be upheld even if it is to the detriment/safety of the majority ? In this example if someone is an obvious risk to people in this country but his rights as an individual say he would be at risk to be returned to his home country, do you think he should stay ?.

If we were to withdraw from the ECHR and implemented the same charter here but answerable to UK supreme court only what would the problem be ?.

 

[SouthSaxon]

It isn't actually. British child molesters already have the right to live in Britain for the rest of their lives. Cases like this are about whether we should grant that right to foreign child molesters as well.

Ah, you’re referring the right to citizenship as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and protected by international human rights law?

Yeah, it’s exactly the same. The same laws affording this highly unpleasant man due process have made a big difference to your life without you even realising that’s what they’re for.

Ask yourself what possible altruistic reason exists why Fromage, Lice and Co would want you to have fewer rights?

But then, you were quite happy in 2016 to strip all UK citizens of the right to freely travel, work and live anywhere in the EU. You don’t seem to have learned the relevant lesson from that.

 

[Weststander]

Corbyn is an out and anti semitic. There was no smear campaign.

Not a Corbyn fan here. I think his sin was allowing anti semitic allies and chums carte blanche to post/state their racist tropes.

 

[Berty23]

You do love asking questions, not so good at answering them.

Where do YOU draw the line ?, do you think people should be able to endlessly play the system launching appeal after appeal until they find a judge who will allow it?

You never did answer my old question, what crimes do YOU think should warrant immediate or post sentence deportation for foreign nationals? Murder ?, paedophilia ?, robbery/theft ?, fraud ? drug supply/dealing ?, human trafficking ? burglary ?

Do you think the rights of an individual should be upheld even if it is to the detriment/safety of the majority ? In this example if someone is an obvious risk to people in this country but his rights as an individual say he would be at risk to be returned to his home country, do you think he should stay ?.

If we were to withdraw from the ECHR and implemented the same charter here but answerable to UK supreme court only what would the problem be ?.

Thanks. No answers that are considered.

I think everyone has human rights and should get a fair trial. Once they have been shown to be a danger to society then if they were going to prison for more than a year we deport them. That is what we should do.

What I don’t think we should do is start messing around with our own bill of rights that like everything in this country can be changed by an act of Parliament. This will make things political and we should keep politics away from this.

So many times there have been miscarriages of justice so removing rights on a whim is not great idea.

 

[schmunk]

Corbyn is an out and anti semitic. There was no smear campaign.

Could you list perhaps a handful of Jeremy Corbyn's antisemitic actions / speech?

If it's helpful I could provide you a reciprocal list of war crimes perpetrated by the Israeli government?