Question time

mkpdavies · 04-03-2005, 12:23 PM

The EU stole it!!!! How come COE didn't sue them then?

Sheila · 04-03-2005, 12:36 PM

OK, OK - maybe "pinched" was the wrong word!!

see
http://europa.eu.int/abc/symbols/emblem/index_en.htm
for the history

mkpdavies · 04-03-2005, 12:52 PM

Quote:

The Council of Europe then encouraged other European institutions to adopt the same flag and, in 1983, the European Parliament took up the call. Finally, in 1985, the flag was adopted by all EU heads of State and government as the official emblem of the European Union - which, in those days, was called the European Communities.

Sounds like a bit of undue pressure and influence from COE on the EU there! :wink:

Nick Moody · 04-03-2005, 01:54 PM

On the subject of the Human Rights Act am I right in thinking that the Law Lords ruled the detention of suspected terrorists illegal under this act which then forced the gov't to bring in other measures to control them, namely the proposed house arrest. If this is the case then surely house arrest would be illegal also under the Human Rights Act or wouldn't it? Which is the more draconian, detention without trial or house arrest without trial?

DAtkins · 04-03-2005, 06:37 PM

Make no mistake we need the Human Rights Act and because we don't have all the remedies in current British Law it is very valuable. It's all lawyers have in some cases to protect their clients. Sure it is abused but the fundamentals are important. Yes we do need the Act, we don't need the EU Court we can go the Court of Appeal / House of Lords as the final court of appeal.

So keep the Act and dump the EU.

Nic · 04-03-2005, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DAtkins

Make no mistake we need the Human Rights Act and because we don't have all the remedies in current British Law it is very valuable. It's all lawyers have in some cases to protect their clients. Sure it is abused but the fundamentals are important. Yes we do need the Act, we don't need the EU Court we can go the Court of Appeal / House of Lords as the final court of appeal.

So keep the Act and dump the EU.

The reality is that we don't need the Act and never did. We signed the treaty in 1951 which binds us to it. The only difference the Act makes is that it is now somewhat easier (and cheaper!!) to hold our government to an international treaty for which we were partly responsible.

PS Sheila, I believe you too!!

DAtkins · 04-03-2005, 08:40 PM

I am sorry to say that I think we do need the act. I have been involved with 14 High Court Judicial Reviews against the closure of elderly persons residential care homes all have been based round the H.R Act. The only "law" we have to oppose evictions from residential Care Home closures both Public and Private and the consequent shortening of lives is the Human Rights Act. " it's an offence to knowingly shorten the life of another", right to home and family life (to stop friendship groups being split up as a result of a closure) "in human treatment".

If there is British Case law which covers this then please tell us, the solicitors and barristers in the field would like to know.

mkpdavies · 05-03-2005, 07:34 AM

We should have some sort of Human Rights legislation, but defined and executed by our own courts of law. I refuse to except that we need to outsource the responsibility to some European court, that has to take all of the different nations laws INTO phpbb_account, rather than being focused on our law.

Of course we should copy any good ideas that come out of any court in the world, including the European court.

DAtkins · 05-03-2005, 08:59 PM

Exactly my point. It's not bad (in fact it's pretty good) and we should make the Court of Appeal / House of Lords the final arbiter.

04-03-2005, 12:23 PM	#11 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,849 Party: Libertarian Party	The EU stole it!!!! How come COE didn't sue them then? __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

04-03-2005, 06:37 PM	#15 (permalink)
DAtkins Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Essex Posts: 34	Human Rights Act Make no mistake we need the Human Rights Act and because we don't have all the remedies in current British Law it is very valuable. It's all lawyers have in some cases to protect their clients. Sure it is abused but the fundamentals are important. Yes we do need the Act, we don't need the EU Court we can go the Court of Appeal / House of Lords as the final court of appeal. So keep the Act and dump the EU.

04-03-2005, 08:40 PM	#17 (permalink)
DAtkins Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Essex Posts: 34	Human Rights I am sorry to say that I think we do need the act. I have been involved with 14 High Court Judicial Reviews against the closure of elderly persons residential care homes all have been based round the H.R Act. The only "law" we have to oppose evictions from residential Care Home closures both Public and Private and the consequent shortening of lives is the Human Rights Act. " it's an offence to knowingly shorten the life of another", right to home and family life (to stop friendship groups being split up as a result of a closure) "in human treatment". If there is British Case law which covers this then please tell us, the solicitors and barristers in the field would like to know.

05-03-2005, 07:34 AM	#18 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,849 Party: Libertarian Party	We should have some sort of Human Rights legislation, but defined and executed by our own courts of law. I refuse to except that we need to outsource the responsibility to some European court, that has to take all of the different nations laws INTO phpbb_account, rather than being focused on our law. Of course we should copy any good ideas that come out of any court in the world, including the European court. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

04-03-2005, 12:36 PM	#12 (permalink)
Sheila Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Reading Posts: 579	OK, OK - maybe "pinched" was the wrong word!! see http://europa.eu.int/abc/symbols/emblem/index_en.htm for the history

04-03-2005, 01:54 PM	#14 (permalink)
Nick Moody Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: North Yorkshire Posts: 100	On the subject of the Human Rights Act am I right in thinking that the Law Lords ruled the detention of suspected terrorists illegal under this act which then forced the gov't to bring in other measures to control them, namely the proposed house arrest. If this is the case then surely house arrest would be illegal also under the Human Rights Act or wouldn't it? Which is the more draconian, detention without trial or house arrest without trial?

05-03-2005, 08:59 PM	#19 (permalink)
DAtkins Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Essex Posts: 34	Exactly my point. It's not bad (in fact it's pretty good) and we should make the Court of Appeal / House of Lords the final arbiter.