O/T For those who claim that the BBC is left wing.

[rolymiller]

All the time, bud.

Think I should qualify what I posted there I was talking about GFire not you Kerr. ie Gfire makes things up.

You may have got your faults Mr Kerr but I don't believe you make things up.

[Exiletyke]

Think I should qualify what I posted there I was talking about GFire not you Kerr. ie Gfire makes things up.

You may have got your faults Mr Kerr but I don't believe you make things up.

Pointless asking Kerr he makes things up as usual

Syntax roly
next time try
Pointless asking, he makes things up as usual Kerr, or Kerr it's pointless asking, he makes things up as usual

Syntax it's stock in trade for Kerr

[great_fire]

I'm afraid that's cobblers, gf.

The UK was one of the first signatories to the ECHR in 1951 (hardly surprising since we wrote it) and we accepted the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights in 1960 (hence such landmark cases as Ireland v UK in 1978 and Sunday Times v UK in 1979).

The Human Rights Act (enacted by Parliament rather than Tony Blair) merely imposed an obligation upon British Courts to have regard to the ECHR when interpreting domestic law.

As for criminals being treated better than victims. What do you have in mind? The only Article that has a direct bearing upon criminal law is Article 6 - the right to a fair trial. Are you saying that you think fair trials are a bad idea? Wouldn't you want one if you were accused of a crime? In practise, it has had little bearing upon UK criminal law as various items of UK law were already in place to ensure a fair trial.

But let’s not get distracted from the issue; what is wrong with your right to freedom of expression under Article 10.

Since then all we've heard about is criminals "human rights", why foreign criminals can't be deported, prisoners threatening to sue all the time unless they're treated like royalty.

The act should be repealed.

And come on, enacted by parliament, it was Blair with a massive majority giving more money to his wife, the guy was and is a greedy con man.

Labour leaders are the worst for being greedy troughers, look at Kinnock.

[great_fire]

Deleted.

[Exiletyke]

I'm afraid that's cobblers, gf.

The UK was one of the first signatories to the ECHR in 1951 (hardly surprising since we wrote it) and we accepted the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights in 1960 (hence such landmark cases as Ireland v UK in 1978 and Sunday Times v UK in 1979).

The Human Rights Act (enacted by Parliament rather than Tony Blair) merely imposed an obligation upon British Courts to have regard to the ECHR when interpreting domestic law.

As for criminals being treated better than victims. What do you have in mind? The only Article that has a direct bearing upon criminal law is Article 6 - the right to a fair trial. Are you saying that you think fair trials are a bad idea? Wouldn't you want one if you were accused of a crime? In practise, it has had little bearing upon UK criminal law as various items of UK law were already in place to ensure a fair trial.

But let’s not get distracted from the issue; what is wrong with your right to freedom of expression under Article 10.

Article 10 Freedom of expression

1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.


Can anyone see from the above what a misnomer Article 10 is

[great_fire]

Article 10 Freedom of expression

1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.


Can anyone see from the above what a misnomer Article 10 is

It looks much weaker than the First Amendment, too many loopholes easily exploited by governments.

[Exiletyke]

It looks much weaker than the First Amendment, too many loopholes easily exploited by governments.

You're not as daft as some make out

[great_fire]

If you pay attention it's the "right to a family life" that usually stops illegal immigrants and foreign criminals from being deported.

Once a guy only had a cat and a judge said that counted!

[KerrAvon]

Article 10 Freedom of expression

1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.


Can anyone see from the above what a misnomer Article 10 is

Article 10 is what is known as a qualified right within the convention.

Are you suggesting that it shouldn't be qualified? That people should be entitled to threaten, incite crime or defame, for example?

The First Amendment to the US Constitution is also qualified, as gf himself pointed out:

Not protected by the First Amendment:

Obscenity
Fighting words
Defamation (including libel and slander)
Child ****ography
Perjury
Blackmail
Incitement to imminent lawless action
True threats
Solicitations to commit crimes

[KerrAvon]

If you pay attention it's the "right to a family life" that usually stops illegal immigrants and foreign criminals from being deported.

Once a guy only had a cat and a judge said that counted!

The right to a private life in Article 8 mirrors the US Fourth Amendment.

Your cat comment epitomises the main problem with the ECHR, which is the misinformation surrounding it.

The cat story isn't true. It comes from a speech by Teresa May, who wanted to repeal the Human Rights Act. She hasn't tried since becoming PM, because she knows that there isn't a majority for it in Parliament (even though Blair is long gone...).

Article 8 has nothing to do with the right to freedom of expression that you were so concerned about.