grrclark Posted October 30, 2015 Report Share Posted October 30, 2015 179 to 19 votes! Wow Don't rely on the PW demographic being representative of anything like what the actual vote would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romes Posted October 30, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2015 Don't rely on the PW demographic being representative of anything like what the actual vote would be. Of course not, still impressive though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srspower Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 Not as much as the chancers turning up on our shores with their hands out. Do you really think we would have less rights if the UK was entirely self governing and you had direct access to those who formulate our laws by way of your MP? Yes I do think that! People get locked up for what they say on social media in the country for goodness sake. We only just got rid of blasphemy laws and then quickly replaced them under the public order act with 'causing offence'. I don't care how many immigrants 'abuse the system' I want my rights. Remember a right is not a right when its popular it is a right when it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 The Magna Carta was the basis of the human rights act and the UK has always been a bastion of human rights. The EU have perverted that and tried to force the UK into doing things that we dont want, like giving prisoners the vote. We lock people up for hate speech on social media and so we should, human rights have become abused to the point that murderers think they can sue for hurt feelings and people think the right to free speech can extend to preaching hatred and bile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STOTTO Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 The Magna Carta was the basis of the human rights act and the UK has always been a bastion of human rights. The EU have perverted that and tried to force the UK into doing things that we dont want, like giving prisoners the vote. We lock people up for hate speech on social media and so we should, human rights have become abused to the point that murderers think they can sue for hurt feelings and people think the right to free speech can extend to preaching hatred and bile. Human Rights should ultimately culminate at the end of a rope as that is where respect for them is gained by non-supporters! I agree but non-PC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
srspower Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) The Magna Carta was the basis of the human rights act and the UK has always been a bastion of human rights. The EU have perverted that and tried to force the UK into doing things that we dont want, like giving prisoners the vote. We lock people up for hate speech on social media and so we should, human rights have become abused to the point that murderers think they can sue for hurt feelings and people think the right to free speech can extend to preaching hatred and bile. You see your attitude is exactly the problem. What use is a human right if any time someone actually uses it they are accused of 'abusing their rights'? Rights can't be abused that is the entire point of them! What use would a right be if people making use of them could only do so if they had a popular point of view? Your attitude smacks of intellectual degeneracy, how can we foster the good ideas without hearing the bad ones? How can we challenge those with objectionable opinions without giving them the freedom to air them? Fundamental human rights, like the US constitution, underpin democracy. They are written in stone and they serve to protect us all from the tyranny of the majority. To give you an idea, how long before you supporting your own world view on field sports is counted as extremism and you are locked up and told you are 'abusing your rights'? Edited October 31, 2015 by srspower Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) You see your attitude is exactly the problem. What use is a human right if any time someone actually uses it they are accused of 'abusing their rights'? Rights can't be abused that is the entire point of them! What use would a right be if people making use of them could only do so if they had a popular point of view? Your attitude smacks of intellectual degeneracy, how can we foster the good ideas without hearing the bad ones? How can we challenge those with objectionable opinions without giving them the freedom to air them? Fundamental human rights, like the US constitution, underpin democracy. They are written in stone and they serve to protect us all from the tyranny of the majority. To give you an idea, how long before you supporting your own world view on field sports is counted as extremism and you are locked up and told you are 'abusing your rights'? You suggest that my argument smacks of intellectual degeneracy and I will counter that by saying that your approach is nothing short of foolishly naive pseudo liberalism. The entire concept of "Human Rights" is that they are contrived, they are an artificial construct that is a reflection of what is considered to be acceptable of the day. The proposal is that the EU Human Rights act should be replaced with a British Bill of Rights, there is no suggestion at all that we should be left with a vacuum. The US constitution is based directly on the Magna Carta which still underpins the basis of the British approach and the EU approach. I never suggested at all that we should censor alternate opinion, what I suggested is that people should not be allowed to preach hate without fear of being held accountable for their message under the guise of some artificial construct. The contention of our current government is that the essence of what has served Britain so well and which has been the blueprint for damn near every progressive and developed country in the world should be perverted by naive liberalism in Europe. I absolutely do not want prisoners to be able to vote, they ceded their right when they abused the rights of others. I absolutely do not believe that anyone has the right to preach hatred and division without fear of censure. I argue that is my Human Right to be spared from the influence of others who have abdicated their acceptance of the societal norms that I subscribe and conform to. Our societal values determine what we believe is acceptable and that moves with time, as it should, but blind observance to what is enacted in countries that share little in terms of common cultural and societal value, the EU Court of Human Rights, is naive in the extreme. Your response to me was hostile for daring to have an alternate opinion to you, indeed to the point where you attempt to invalidate my argument by calling me "intellectually degenerate" and attempting to render my argument moot. I hope that you appreciate the irony in your approach? We have a current case in Scotland where two convicted murderers, who are also gay male partners, were trying to sue the state for hurt feelings as they were denied the opportunity to continue a normal loving relationship together whilst in jail. They murdered a woman who was going to expose them as pedophiles. They attempted to bring that case to court under the guise of a breach of their "human rights". They had no respect on the sanctity of human life for the woman they murdered and neither had they any respect for the rights of the children they abused to not be abused; by definition to suit their own purpose they are quite happy to deny the rights of others, but feel that they should be able to sue the state because they have hurt feelings that their rights are denied. That is nothing short of an utter abuse of a contrived act, an act that actively promotes abuse of process and the right of law for nothing other than furthering individual gain with no wider societal benefit. That in itself denies the Human Rights of everyone else to be protected from abuse of the rule of law. The EU Human Rights act has become bad law, the principle in itself is of course sound. If you wish to allow the right to promote hatred then where is the right of others to not be subjected to hatred? I absolutely and fundamentally support a Bill of Rights that preserves our hard won freedoms and liberties and to protect us from the abuse of authority, but that must be reflective of our (British) societal norms and conventions and not something that is imposed on us from a remote bureaucracy with no accountability to the people who must live under their rule of judgement. Human Rights must protect all sides of the argument, it cannot be used as shield to allow promotion of an extreme view without recognising that there is also a right of others to be protected from the extreme views. In so far as the US Constitution is concerned how well is that working giving the endemic racism that prevails throughout that country? How is that working within the educational system in the bible belt states that still only teach creationism and attempts to sue those into silence who may wish to promote evolutionary theory? The hard truth is that because there is no such absolute thing as 'Human Rights' is that we are always going to be perpetually involved in discussions of balance and compromise that try to serve the greatest amount of people as possible. Edited October 31, 2015 by grrclark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scully Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 Superb post gr. I wish I were as intelligently and eloquently articulate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoma1 Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 Any rules/laws made by Man/Woman bought in with the of best intentions, can and will be perverted, abused and interpreted to suit the selfish purposes of a minority of Men/Women..............as usual the minority always spoil things for the majority! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pimpkiller Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 There is nothing wrong with the human rights act in it's self, just the way lawyers bend it about for money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 There is nothing wrong with the human rights act in it's self, just the way lawyers bend it about for money At the risk of being controversial, that is precisely what is wrong with it, the intent and spirit if it has been lost as it has become something it was never meant to be. The act has become a target for abuse of process. That is why a British Bill or Rights preserving the key elements, but appropriate to our society is way better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted October 31, 2015 Report Share Posted October 31, 2015 (edited) Superb post gr. I wish I were as intelligently and eloquently articulate. A big +1 from me too. One of the best posts I've ever read on here, well said gr. Fundamental human rights, like the US constitution, underpin democracy. They are written in stone and they serve to protect us all from the tyranny of the majority. Yeah, and the US are the bastion of human rights...aren't they? Edited October 31, 2015 by poontang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pond digger 007 Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 I don't see how complete political and social union can be made to work; it takes no account of the rich diversity of culture that has developed over such a long period of time, and which is heavily influenced by geographical location. Whilst it's inevitable that closer ties will 'naturally' develope over time as a consequence of advancements in transport and communication; forcing change can only result in hostility. It's the pace and the degree of closer union that it the issue: as always, there needs to be compromise and understanding of national differances: what is so wrong with cultural diversity anyway? Unfortunately, the EU beurocrats are too remote, too corrupt, and not nearly accountable enough, to properly represent the interest of individual nations: we just don't trust them! From a purely selfish point of view, as someone who relies largely on agriculture to provide an income, I suspect that I'm going to be better off in than out (the French and Germans do seem to care about their farmers). However, instinctively, I don't like being pushed about, particularly by the Germans, who seem to remain hell bent on world domination. If I could be assured that leaving, wouldnt ultimately lead to world war three (and we kid ourselves that it can't happen again at our peril), then I might just vote to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike737 Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 You suggest that my argument smacks of intellectual degeneracy and I will counter that by saying that your approach is nothing short of foolishly naive pseudo liberalism. The entire concept of "Human Rights" is that they are contrived, they are an artificial construct that is a reflection of what is considered to be acceptable of the day. The proposal is that the EU Human Rights act should be replaced with a British Bill of Rights, there is no suggestion at all that we should be left with a vacuum. The US constitution is based directly on the Magna Carta which still underpins the basis of the British approach and the EU approach. I never suggested at all that we should censor alternate opinion, what I suggested is that people should not be allowed to preach hate without fear of being held accountable for their message under the guise of some artificial construct. The contention of our current government is that the essence of what has served Britain so well and which has been the blueprint for damn near every progressive and developed country in the world should be perverted by naive liberalism in Europe. I absolutely do not want prisoners to be able to vote, they ceded their right when they abused the rights of others. I absolutely do not believe that anyone has the right to preach hatred and division without fear of censure. I argue that is my Human Right to be spared from the influence of others who have abdicated their acceptance of the societal norms that I subscribe and conform to. Our societal values determine what we believe is acceptable and that moves with time, as it should, but blind observance to what is enacted in countries that share little in terms of common cultural and societal value, the EU Court of Human Rights, is naive in the extreme. Your response to me was hostile for daring to have an alternate opinion to you, indeed to the point where you attempt to invalidate my argument by calling me "intellectually degenerate" and attempting to render my argument moot. I hope that you appreciate the irony in your approach? We have a current case in Scotland where two convicted murderers, who are also gay male partners, were trying to sue the state for hurt feelings as they were denied the opportunity to continue a normal loving relationship together whilst in jail. They murdered a woman who was going to expose them as pedophiles. They attempted to bring that case to court under the guise of a breach of their "human rights". They had no respect on the sanctity of human life for the woman they murdered and neither had they any respect for the rights of the children they abused to not be abused; by definition to suit their own purpose they are quite happy to deny the rights of others, but feel that they should be able to sue the state because they have hurt feelings that their rights are denied. That is nothing short of an utter abuse of a contrived act, an act that actively promotes abuse of process and the right of law for nothing other than furthering individual gain with no wider societal benefit. That in itself denies the Human Rights of everyone else to be protected from abuse of the rule of law. The EU Human Rights act has become bad law, the principle in itself is of course sound. If you wish to allow the right to promote hatred then where is the right of others to not be subjected to hatred? I absolutely and fundamentally support a Bill of Rights that preserves our hard won freedoms and liberties and to protect us from the abuse of authority, but that must be reflective of our (British) societal norms and conventions and not something that is imposed on us from a remote bureaucracy with no accountability to the people who must live under their rule of judgement. Human Rights must protect all sides of the argument, it cannot be used as shield to allow promotion of an extreme view without recognising that there is also a right of others to be protected from the extreme views. In so far as the US Constitution is concerned how well is that working giving the endemic racism that prevails throughout that country? How is that working within the educational system in the bible belt states that still only teach creationism and attempts to sue those into silence who may wish to promote evolutionary theory? The hard truth is that because there is no such absolute thing as 'Human Rights' is that we are always going to be perpetually involved in discussions of balance and compromise that try to serve the greatest amount of people as possible. grrclark, Your posts are always incisive, but this one is the cherry on the cake. Possibly your best ever, though it is difficult to choose... Well done for not descending to the level of SRS's post in reply. Mike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grrclark Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 Thanks for the kind comments chaps. The principle of human rights is obviously something that SRS feels strongly about, as he should, and I respect that. It's all too easy to react to the written word whilst misinterpreting or reading things out of context and I suspect there is maybe a bit of that in this thread. All educational and interesting though. In true PW style there is also a healthy dose of thread drift, isn't it a vibrant place Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodp Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 I don't see how complete political and social union can be made to work; it takes no account of the rich diversity of culture that has developed over such a long period of time, and which is heavily influenced by geographical location. Whilst it's inevitable that closer ties will 'naturally' develope over time as a consequence of advancements in transport and communication; forcing change can only result in hostility. It's the pace and the degree of closer union that it the issue: as always, there needs to be compromise and understanding of national differances: what is so wrong with cultural diversity anyway? Unfortunately, the EU beurocrats are too remote, too corrupt, and not nearly accountable enough, to properly represent the interest of individual nations: we just don't trust them! From a purely selfish point of view, as someone who relies largely on agriculture to provide an income, I suspect that I'm going to be better off in than out (the French and Germans do seem to care about their farmers). However, instinctively, I don't like being pushed about, particularly by the Germans, who seem to remain hell bent on world domination. If I could be assured that leaving, wouldnt ultimately lead to world war three (and we kid ourselves that it can't happen again at our peril), then I might just vote to go. Not just about you though is it, how about your children and grandchildren. What sort of country are they looking forward to at this rate ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjimmer Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 Not just about you though is it, how about your children and grandchildren. What sort of country are they looking forward to at this rate ? +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pond digger 007 Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 Not just about you though is it, how about your children and grandchildren. What sort of country are they looking forward to at this rate ? And that's precisely my biggest concern: if the EU does nothing other than preserves the state of relative peace, so that my grandson can enjoy the same sense of security that I've thus far enjoyed, then enduring it's many shortcomings may be well worth while. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodp Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 I think possibly that any country intent on starting something would just disregard the eu and carry on anyway. They would just throw their toys out and strop off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poontang Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 I think possibly that any country intent on starting something would just disregard the eu and carry on anyway. They would just throw their toys out and strop off. Like Russia walking in to Ukraine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vince Green Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 All this stuff with FIFA gives a very revealing window into the way the Europeans run their organisations and indeed their countries. FIFA has been run in the same way as the EU is being run, its just that nobody is brave enough to lift the lid on the toxic mess that is the EU because where would you start? Could anybody reform the EU? no they couldn't Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjimmer Posted November 1, 2015 Report Share Posted November 1, 2015 All this stuff with FIFA gives a very revealing window into the way the Europeans run their organisations and indeed their countries. FIFA has been run in the same way as the EU is being run, its just that nobody is brave enough to lift the lid on the toxic mess that is the EU because where would you start? Could anybody reform the EU? no they couldn't +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Romes Posted April 27, 2016 Author Report Share Posted April 27, 2016 Well Guys and Girls, its getting closer - any changes to the feelings? or have recent details enforced your choice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TIGHTCHOKE Posted April 27, 2016 Report Share Posted April 27, 2016 Still OUT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
felly100 Posted April 27, 2016 Report Share Posted April 27, 2016 Still in. Not as in as I was,I'm drifting out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts