|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jan 5, 2024 13:54:48 GMT
I'm afraid, after reading that ^ I have to come to the conclusion that you don't know what you're talking about... To be fair, we didn't need to read that to come to that conclusion.  Btw, have you noticed Zany's latest "Debating" technique is to question his opponent's subject knowledge: "Do you even know...?" Question is: Does Zany ever know? And based on all available evidence, it's doubtful he even knows his arse from a hole in the ground.  |
|
|
|
Post by Bentley on Jan 5, 2024 14:05:49 GMT
How would you know if Jonksy was correct about how heat pumps work? Have you any training on heat pumps ? Jonsky has never said how heat pumps work, he has just said they don't which is patently incorrect. And yes I do know how heat pumps work, it’s not exactly rocket science is it. And you haven’t explained exactly how climate change works but you still bang on about it . The truth is that we are all posting our opinions ….including you . |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 5, 2024 14:19:55 GMT
I'm afraid, after reading that ^ I have to come to the conclusion that you don't know what you're talking about... To be fair, we didn't need to read that to come to that conclusion. Btw, have you noticed Zany's latest "Debating" technique is to question his opponent's subject knowledge: "Do you even know...?" Question is: Does Zany ever know? And based on all available evidence, it's doubtful he even knows his arse from a hole in the ground. Indeed, I get the feeling that ZG seems to be drifting further to the left. Not with any real purpose or determination you understand, more of an aimless drift ever left on board a rudderless ship in search of some socialist nirvana that will never be found, carried along on a tide of left wing flotsam, Capt ZG on the bridge with his bumbling first mate See2 at the helm.  |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 5, 2024 14:23:37 GMT
How would you know if Jonksy was correct about how heat pumps work? Have you any training on heat pumps ?
he has just said they don't which is patently incorrect. And yes I do know how heat pumps work, its not exactly rocket science is it. And you have never said how they don't. |
|
|
|
Post by jonksy on Jan 5, 2024 14:44:11 GMT
To be fair, we didn't need to read that to come to that conclusion. Btw, have you noticed Zany's latest "Debating" technique is to question his opponent's subject knowledge: "Do you even know...?" Question is: Does Zany ever know? And based on all available evidence, it's doubtful he even knows his arse from a hole in the ground. Indeed, I get the feeling that ZG seems to be drifting further to the left. Not with any real purpose or determination you understand, more of an aimless drift ever left on board a rudderless ship in search of some socialist nirvana that will never be found, carried along on a tide of left wing flotsam, Capt ZG on the bridge with his bumbling first mate See2 at the helm. Zany thinks that a fridge turned back to front is a substitute for a boiler FFS. If brains were gun powder he wouldn't have enough to blow his hat off. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 5, 2024 15:07:57 GMT
And if I quote another professor saying we should be in the ECHR should we re-join? How do you know which professor to believe if you have no even basic knowledge of the difference between European and International human rights. I'm not interested in academics arguing whether we should or shouldn't leave the ECHR, everyone has an opinion. You appeared to be under the impression that we couldn't leave the ECHR. I quoted professor Ekins because he points out that we could lawfully leave the ECHR and the jurisdiction of the ECtHR. It is not a question of law, it's a question of political will. I have no idea how you reached the conclusion that I thought we couldn't leave. I said nothing like that. What I asked was if we leave the ECHR which human rights are you hoping we will be rid of? and are you aware if they also appear under international law. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 5, 2024 15:11:55 GMT
I'm afraid, after reading that ^ I have to come to the conclusion that you don't know what you're talking about... To be fair, we didn't need to read that to come to that conclusion. Btw, have you noticed Zany's latest "Debating" technique is to question his opponent's subject knowledge: "Do you even know...?" Question is: Does Zany ever know? And based on all available evidence, it's doubtful he even knows his arse from a hole in the ground. If you want to know "does Zany know" ask and Zany will answer. What Zany dislikes is is the puerile crap you so often spill in place of facts or evidence. So Squeezy do you know which laws Red might be rid of by leaving the ECHR but not international treaties on refugees? |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 5, 2024 15:19:20 GMT
I'm not interested in academics arguing whether we should or shouldn't leave the ECHR, everyone has an opinion. You appeared to be under the impression that we couldn't leave the ECHR. I quoted professor Ekins because he points out that we could lawfully leave the ECHR and the jurisdiction of the ECtHR. It is not a question of law, it's a question of political will. I have no idea how you reached the conclusion that I thought we couldn't leave. I said nothing like that. What I asked was if we leave the ECHR which human rights are you hoping we will be rid of? and are you aware if they also appear under international law. There is no reason the UK could not be like Australia, Canada or New Zealand, all of which protect human rights without relying on supranational litigation. And just for good measure, Blairs Human Rights Act should be repealed and the constitutional position restored to that of 1998 whereby human rights were protected by ordinary statute and common law. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 5, 2024 15:47:25 GMT
I have no idea how you reached the conclusion that I thought we couldn't leave. I said nothing like that. What I asked was if we leave the ECHR which human rights are you hoping we will be rid of? and are you aware if they also appear under international law. There is no reason the UK could not be like Australia, Canada or New Zealand, all of which protect human rights without relying on supranational litigation. And just for good measure, Blairs Human Rights Act should be repealed and the constitutional position restored to that of 1998 whereby human rights were protected by ordinary statute and common law. Do Australia New Zealand and Canada follow international law on refugee status and asylum seekers? I thought they did. Australia works in partnership with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to provide life-saving humanitarian assistance and safeguard the rights and wellbeing of refugees, asylum seekers, stateless and internally displaced persons globally, including in the Indo-Pacific region. Everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. The 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees elaborates upon this right. It provides an international meaning of ‘refugee’, which is a person in another country at risk of persecution in her, his or their own country. The Convention sets out certain basic rights of refugees that are necessary for the enjoyment of asylum. These include the right not to be returned to a place where they are at risk of persecution. It also includes the right not to be penalised for being in or entering a country without permission where this is necessary for them to seek and receive asylum. What I would like to discover Red. Is which bit of refugee law you are hoping to drop by leaving the ECHR? Please understand I am not against the idea, I just wish to see what it gains us? |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 5, 2024 15:58:52 GMT
To be fair, we didn't need to read that to come to that conclusion. Btw, have you noticed Zany's latest "Debating" technique is to question his opponent's subject knowledge: "Do you even know...?" Question is: Does Zany ever know? And based on all available evidence, it's doubtful he even knows his arse from a hole in the ground. Indeed, I get the feeling that ZG seems to be drifting further to the left. Not with any real purpose or determination you understand, more of an aimless drift ever left on board a rudderless ship in search of some socialist nirvana that will never be found, carried along on a tide of left wing flotsam, Capt ZG on the bridge with his bumbling first mate See2 at the helm. I might appear to be moving left as you move ever further right. The further you go down the rabbit hole of everything is the EU's fault and or Refugees fault the further left I appear. Strangely you seem to need me to be lefty to justify your position. I have talked many times about methods to stop economic migrants and change to meaning of 'refugee' in international law. Yet you studiously ignore any such comments from me and prefer to imply I want endless illegal migrants coming to the UK. I speak of stopping legal immigration and how we might do so without crashing our economy further and allowing for factors such as our aging population. Yet still you would paint me as a pinko leftie. Frankly Red I think the problem lies in you not me. |
|
|
|
Post by Pacifico on Jan 5, 2024 16:52:23 GMT
There is no reason the UK could not be like Australia, Canada or New Zealand, all of which protect human rights without relying on supranational litigation. And just for good measure, Blairs Human Rights Act should be repealed and the constitutional position restored to that of 1998 whereby human rights were protected by ordinary statute and common law. Do Australia New Zealand and Canada follow international law on refugee status and asylum seekers? I thought they did. Australia works in partnership with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to provide life-saving humanitarian assistance and safeguard the rights and wellbeing of refugees, asylum seekers, stateless and internally displaced persons globally, including in the Indo-Pacific region. Everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. The 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees elaborates upon this right. It provides an international meaning of ‘refugee’, which is a person in another country at risk of persecution in her, his or their own country. The Convention sets out certain basic rights of refugees that are necessary for the enjoyment of asylum. These include the right not to be returned to a place where they are at risk of persecution. It also includes the right not to be penalised for being in or entering a country without permission where this is necessary for them to seek and receive asylum.
What I would like to discover Red. Is which bit of refugee law you are hoping to drop by leaving the ECHR? Please understand I am not against the idea, I just wish to see what it gains us? Australia does not allow them to enter the country to claim asylum. That is a 'right' they do not have. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 5, 2024 17:26:57 GMT
There is no reason the UK could not be like Australia, Canada or New Zealand, all of which protect human rights without relying on supranational litigation. And just for good measure, Blairs Human Rights Act should be repealed and the constitutional position restored to that of 1998 whereby human rights were protected by ordinary statute and common law. Do Australia New Zealand and Canada follow international law on refugee status and asylum seekers? I thought they did. Australia works in partnership with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to provide life-saving humanitarian assistance and safeguard the rights and wellbeing of refugees, asylum seekers, stateless and internally displaced persons globally, including in the Indo-Pacific region. Everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. The 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees elaborates upon this right. It provides an international meaning of ‘refugee’, which is a person in another country at risk of persecution in her, his or their own country. The Convention sets out certain basic rights of refugees that are necessary for the enjoyment of asylum. These include the right not to be returned to a place where they are at risk of persecution. It also includes the right not to be penalised for being in or entering a country without permission where this is necessary for them to seek and receive asylum. What I would like to discover Red. Is which bit of refugee law you are hoping to drop by leaving the ECHR? Please understand I am not against the idea, I just wish to see what it gains us? I'm not quite sure what all that was for. We are not legally obliged to remain signatories of the convention, it is entirely the governments decision. The reason many people want the government to withdraw from it is because it's a 70 year old peice of legislation that was penned in the shadow of WW2 when there were millions of displaced people in a war torn Europe. Today that legislation is increasingly used to stop the government deporting criminals and illegal immigrants. As such it must be blatantly obvious to even the most outraged of lefties that it is no longer fit for purpose and should with a sense of urgency be repealed. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 5, 2024 17:27:51 GMT
Do Australia New Zealand and Canada follow international law on refugee status and asylum seekers? I thought they did. Australia works in partnership with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to provide life-saving humanitarian assistance and safeguard the rights and wellbeing of refugees, asylum seekers, stateless and internally displaced persons globally, including in the Indo-Pacific region. Everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. The 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees elaborates upon this right. It provides an international meaning of ‘refugee’, which is a person in another country at risk of persecution in her, his or their own country. The Convention sets out certain basic rights of refugees that are necessary for the enjoyment of asylum. These include the right not to be returned to a place where they are at risk of persecution. It also includes the right not to be penalised for being in or entering a country without permission where this is necessary for them to seek and receive asylum.
What I would like to discover Red. Is which bit of refugee law you are hoping to drop by leaving the ECHR? Please understand I am not against the idea, I just wish to see what it gains us? Australia does not allow them to enter the country to claim asylum. That is a 'right' they do not have. Well spotted. |
|
|
|
Post by zanygame on Jan 5, 2024 17:39:35 GMT
Do Australia New Zealand and Canada follow international law on refugee status and asylum seekers? I thought they did. Australia works in partnership with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) to provide life-saving humanitarian assistance and safeguard the rights and wellbeing of refugees, asylum seekers, stateless and internally displaced persons globally, including in the Indo-Pacific region. Everyone has the right to seek and enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. The 1951 UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees elaborates upon this right. It provides an international meaning of ‘refugee’, which is a person in another country at risk of persecution in her, his or their own country. The Convention sets out certain basic rights of refugees that are necessary for the enjoyment of asylum. These include the right not to be returned to a place where they are at risk of persecution. It also includes the right not to be penalised for being in or entering a country without permission where this is necessary for them to seek and receive asylum.
What I would like to discover Red. Is which bit of refugee law you are hoping to drop by leaving the ECHR? Please understand I am not against the idea, I just wish to see what it gains us? Australia does not allow them to enter the country to claim asylum. That is a 'right' they do not have. Thanks Pacifico. Do you know. Are they allowed in if they are successful in their asylum claim. |
|
|
|
Post by Red Rackham on Jan 5, 2024 17:48:50 GMT
I might appear to be moving left as you move ever further right. The further you go down the rabbit hole of everything is the EU's fault and or Refugees fault the further left I appear. Strangely you seem to need me to be lefty to justify your position. I have talked many times about methods to stop economic migrants and change to meaning of 'refugee' in international law. Yet you studiously ignore any such comments from me and prefer to imply I want endless illegal migrants coming to the UK. I speak of stopping legal immigration and how we might do so without crashing our economy further and allowing for factors such as our aging population. Yet still you would paint me as a pinko leftie. Frankly Red I think the problem lies in you not me. You talk of refugees ZG, but you wouldn't know a refugee if you tripped over one, there are no refugees in the EU state of France. The only reason left wing charities and human rights lawyers get away with describing illegals who cross the channel from the EU as refugees, is because of 70 year old legislation that is no longer fit for purpose. Even you must see that an illegal crossing the channel from France, having first paid a smuggler and destroyed all ID on the advice of UK charities in France, is not by any stretch of the imagination a refugee. It is absolutely preposterous to imagine there are refugees fleeing France. You mention the EU, tell me ZG, who in your opinion are the architects of the European migration crisis? Who opened job centres in Africa? Who announced to the world 'Wir Schaffen das' (we can manage) Then a few short years later apologised and said she wished she could turn the clock back, before retiring into an immigrant free life of tax payers funded luxury? The EU and Merkel are the architects of this ongoing disaster, and you know it. Also, what are your thoughts on the EU building 20ft high anti immigrant fences patrolled by armed guards on their eastern border, or immigrant detention centres in Europe, or returning boats in the Med back to Libya, but ignoring thousands of illegals who pay criminals in France to get to England, double standards? I suppose the UK must be punished for Brexit. |
|
