|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 5, 2023 19:19:15 GMT
Nope. Day to day independence of the judiciary from the electorate is vital in any democracy. And as I say again, without an effective court to enforce rights, they effectively don't exist. Your wish to remove that court removes rights. Independence of the judiciary from government is to protect the electorate from the excesses of government. Both judiciary and government should be accountable to that electorate and in reality must be if democracy means anything at all. The law is not an isolated thing it is that which is designed to allow the electorate to live in some form of harmony with each other obeying general rules as agreed with that electorate. There is no accountability in terms of the 'living document' part of the human rights laws. Back in 1951 most people understood what it meant, now they cannot believe what it now encompasses and how it binds the electorate who have no way to modify its most unusual interpretations. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Sept 6, 2023 0:51:01 GMT
'Most people' haven't actually looked at the judgments the more swivel eyed MPs and the Maily Express rant on about without even reading them.
And I said 'day to day independence' not complete freedom from any accountability. The ECtHR judges are accountable to the Council of Europe body (PACE) on which we have 35 members decided by our elected parliament.
Bet you didn't know that detail (I didn't until just now)
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 6, 2023 14:06:37 GMT
'Most people' haven't actually looked at the judgments the more swivel eyed MPs and the Maily Express rant on about without even reading them. And I said 'day to day independence' not complete freedom from any accountability. The ECtHR judges are accountable to the Council of Europe body (PACE) on which we have 35 members decided by our elected parliament. Bet you didn't know that detail (I didn't until just now) Not the detail however PACE seem intent on creating more law for the court to pronounce on and there is a move to make ECHR judgements applicable in all cases at local national level. The upshot is that the Court will become the all encompassing overseer of law that will be several stages away from the electorate and in effect unable to be changed by them at national level. It is a globalist institution where the people are held at arms length from any decision making. So laws, rules and regulations are passed down from on high as opposed to consensually decided from below. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Sept 6, 2023 21:59:09 GMT
I really think you need to google PACE. It has no legislative power whatsoever. In this context it appoints (and can remove) the ECtHR judges pace.coe.int/en/ |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Sept 7, 2023 17:38:24 GMT
I really think you need to google PACE. It has no legislative power whatsoever. In this context it appoints (and can remove) the ECtHR judges pace.coe.int/en/ Perhaps I should have phrased it better, PACE appear intent to make ECHR judgements apply in local courts much more often, however "PACE’s Social Affairs Committee is urging an ambitious new legal framework, both at national and European level, to “anchor the right to a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment” – and has presented a draft of an additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights which would make such a right enforceable in law in all countries which ratified it. In a resolution and recommendation based on a report by Simon Moutquin (Belgium SOC), the committee said such a legal text would finally give the European Court of Human Rights “a non-disputable base for rulings concerning human rights violations arising from environment-related adverse impacts on human health, dignity and life”." pace.coe.int/en/news/8419/pace-committee-proposes-draft-of-a-new-protocol-to-the-european-convention-on-human-rights-on-the-right-to-a-healthy-environment#:~:text=PACE%E2%80%99s%20Social%20Affairs%20Committee%20is%20urging%20an%20ambitious,in%20law%20in%20all%20countries%20which%20ratified%20it. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Sept 7, 2023 23:14:59 GMT
OK understood
|
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Feb 11, 2024 11:06:50 GMT
Armed Forces hire over 40 diversity and inclusion chiefs tasked with improving equality across the British Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force - just as troop...
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Feb 11, 2024 13:01:43 GMT
I can't see how it's any different to the National Citizenship Service - which is already running (and, I assume - based upon knowing a number of friends whose kids have done it - pretty successful). As the link says - that system is not working very well The Government should create a new Great British National Service for everybody aged 16. As many as 600,000 could participate by automatically enrolling young people unless they opt out. This system would ensure more people from all backgrounds signed up, avoiding the low take-up of the UK’s existing National Citizens Service, which only saw 13% of its target age group sign up in its best year despite a 45% target.
At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, how can it possibly be doing anything other than abysmally if parents and grandparents of about to become 14 year olds have no bleeding idea the scheme exists. Or is this because, like several fascinating schemes and things to do I never realised were there for people my age until I was much older, this is actually indended as an alternative to prison for thieves and those who brawl in the streets |
|
|
|
Post by Totheleft on Feb 11, 2024 16:34:55 GMT
Certainly not the worst idea I have seen and could do a lot for some kids. Like what get them a Home? |
|
