horsefly

The ONLY European countries not in the ECHR are Russia and Belarus. Both are run by dictators. Churchill was the main protagonist for setting up the ECHR precisely because he understood the enormous sacrifices made by the UK and its allies in protecting democracy from a dictatorial tyrant. He never again wanted it to be the case that a nation's population could be tyrannised by a national government in the way Na*zi Germany tyrannised its own people and the rest of the world. Churchill wanted the legacy of the fallen to be an unbreakable European democratic order based on the fundamental rule of law; anything less would have been an insult and shame to their sacrifice. Those of you who complacently think the UK should withdraw from the ECHR please identify which of the principles and legal rights it contains from which you believe UK citizens should not receive protection. Party political convenience can NEVER be a reason for throwing away our nation's commitment to fundamental democratic principles. So I ask again, which of the ECHR principles are not fundamental to our democratic country's system of law? The location of the ECHR court in Strasbourg is entirely IRRELEVANT to the laws on which it judges. It would make no difference to those laws if the court was based in Amsterdam, London, or in any other member nation. The ECHR court in Strasbourg is as much OUR court as is the Old Bailey; each enshrines laws that our OUR laws, each protects the rights we enjoy as citizens of a democratic country.

WRONG, as usual. Withdrawal would require an act of parliament.

On the same day Sunak called on Israel to act in accordance with international law, he fulminated in an interview with Sun slob Harry Cole that the UK should not be subservient to some "foreign court", and should consider withdrawal from the ECHR. It was a lie of course, the European CONVENTION on Human Rights is fully integrated into UK domestic law. The fact that the physical court itself is based in Strasbourg is entirely irrelevant to the laws that hold of all those member nations who are signed up to the ECHR. The court itself is as much our court as any other court based in the UK, just as it is the case for every other ECHR member nation. What has the ECHR done for us: https://x.com/TobiFrenzen/status/1625293800158420996?s=20

https://x.com/BylineTV/status/1674419890994946051?s=20

You're the person that banged on for post after post saying we should purposely spend several years in the Championship developing a squad of young talent 🤣🤣

Why wouldn't people think Rwanda is a safe country? After all, he won 99% of the vote in the last election, so he must be bloody brilliant. https://x.com/Channel4News/status/1770181051173789925?s=20

Brexit, taking back control of our borders: https://x.com/Ginger_Elvis88/status/1753115201879134595?s=20

5000 days of Tory rule £380 million is the amount the National Debt has increased for EACH one of those days. Perhaps would should stick that statistic on the side of a bus. https://x.com/carolvorders/status/1748075594292531481?s=20

And the news keeps getting worse for Fatty Flump https://x.com/OccupyDemocrats/status/1769863406650311077?s=20

Hilarious!

Remember when several fans on here wailed that selling Bali Mumba was a disastrous decision to sell our greatest young asset? https://footballleagueworld.co.uk/expensive-plymouth-argyle-recruit-is-failing-to-live-up-to-the-hype-view/

Amount of beef traded between the UK and Australia since the "brilliant" post-Brexit 2021 trade deal: Australia TO the UK: 1700 tonnes UK TO Australia: 0 (not a single gram) https://x.com/g_gosden/status/1768648852054102042?s=20

You have demonstrated time and again that you are too ignorant or simply too bigoted to engage in rational conversation. I'm not going to waste any more time responding to your racist bilge.

Utterly idiotic! Buying a slave makes you a slave owner. Grow up ffs!

So if I buy a woman sold into white slavery I am not a slave owner. You're an idiot!

Is it a Brexit bonus that it has required employing 100,000 more civil servants? https://ukandeu.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/UKICE-Brexit-and-the-State.pdf

What utter bilge. The reason for selecting a tiny few of the performances of a play about the evils of slavery for black only audiences is BECAUSE OF THE SUBJECT MATTER. The subject matter directly concerns the kidnapping of 2.3m African people by WHITE Britons, who subjected them to mass murder, rape, and forced labour. It shows an astonishing lack of imagination and simple common decency not to understand why 2 performances for a black only audience should be respected. Your description of the "discomfort" caused is entirely disingenuous. It is not caused simply because an audience member is white, it is because the play being performed depicts the brutality of white exploitation of black people. NOT ONE SINGLE WHITE PERSON is being prevented from seeing this play. How difficult is it to understand why 2 performances might be set aside for those people who want to see this specific play about slavery without the presence of the ancestors of the people who perpetuated the crime.

Try responding to the actual issues raised if you want a considered response.

Equally as stupid. You merely demonstrate time and again your complete ignorance of the issues, and your childish petulance.

Sky Bet team of the week dominated by City players, Sara scored a rare 10. https://www.birminghamworld.uk/sport/football/sky-bet-championship-team-of-the-week-whoscored-west-brom-birmingham-city-norwich-city-ipswich-town-4550007?page=3

Awww! Poor you! How do you manage to preserve the will to live?

Getting rave reviews from the Bradford boss. Very encouraging comments: https://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/sportlatest/24175091.bradford-city-boss-hails-massive-potential-american/

An utterly idiotic and ridiculous analogy demonstrating your ignorance. Each performance of a play follows exactly the same script. Football matches don't. Grow up!

Bigoted banal bilge as usual. At least we can rely on your consistency.