Chris28 wrote:At least he didn't mention cats

Ajw71 wrote:You are too stupid to have a discussion without resorting to abuse and childish insults as you always do.

Quote:Grayling should have understood that the HRA does not make decisions by the Strasbourg court binding on British judges: they must merely ‘take account’ of them and must interpret national legislation compatibly with convention rights, so far as is possible. The higher courts may, if necessary, declare that a provision is ‘incompatible’ with national legislation. : its obligation to ensure compliance with the convention is no different from its responsibility to comply with other international instruments such as the UN Convention against Torture or the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The HRA is special because it creates a unique mechanism for the courts to bring compatibility problems to Parliament’s attention.

The subtlety is lost on Grayling.

Quote:Parliament in this country should decide the laws of this country.

Ajw71 wrote:I noticed you ignored this in relation to prisoners voting rights in favour of a cheap point scoring attempt....

"Are you telling me issues such as that was considered by those drafting the convention?"

peggy wrote:Chris28

Why certain prisoners, why not all or none at all?

Quote:“The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature."

Quote:“The Court accepts that this is an area in which a wide margin of appreciation should be granted to the national legislature in determining whether restrictions on prisoners’ right to vote can still be justified in modern times and if so how a fair balance is to be struck. In particular, it should be for the legislature to decide whether any restriction on the right to vote should be tailored to particular offences, or offences of a particular gravity or whether, for instance, the sentencing court should be left with an overriding discretion to deprive a convicted person of his right to vote. The Court would observe that there is no evidence that the legislature in the United Kingdom has ever sought to weigh the competing interests or to assess the proportionality of the ban as it affects convicted prisoners. It cannot accept however that an absolute bar on voting by any serving prisoner in any circumstances falls within an acceptable margin of appreciation. The applicant in the present case lost his right to vote as the result of the imposition of an automatic and blanket restriction on convicted prisoners’ franchise and may therefore claim to be a victim of the measure. The Court cannot speculate as to whether the applicant would still have been deprived of the vote even if a more limited restriction on the right of prisoners to vote had been imposed, which was such as to comply with the requirements of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1.”

JerryChicken wrote:Just to swerve back to the question originally asked - the choice between the European Convention on Human Rights or a British Bill of Rights - you have to ask yourself first if you are happy to allow a group of people to draw up YOUR bill of rights if their first decision is to rip up the European Convention on Human Rights, what is intrinsically so bad about the ECHR that it needs to be scrapped in its entirety and what will THEY replace it with if its not something that benefits THEIR interests rather than OURS.