| Whats your gas bill like ! 11:18 - Dec 3 with 7985 views | Poirot |
12 months ago it was £65 and now its £180 same useage 
Why arent we flooding this country with yank gas ?
We dont have anywhere to store it and are paying premium prices.
| | | |  |
| Whats your gas bill like ! on 21:40 - Dec 5 with 1228 views | huelinsaint |
The Labour Party was founded by the trade unions ffs, the ECHR is nothing whatsoever to do with the European Union.
If you want Northern Ireland to be totally integrated into the UK market,the UK has to join the single market, that's the choice,The United States has told the UK,no border on the island of Ireland,that's why the fat lump lied about not putting a border down the Irish sea. | | | |
| Whats your gas bill like ! on 22:07 - Dec 5 with 1206 views | Bazza |
The Unions founding the Labour Party doesn’t mind they should be able to bully the Labour Party which is supposedly representing voters across society. Unions in some cases don’t even represent the majority of their members. ECHR should be and will eventually be removed from their supremacy over the UK Legal system especially our Supreme Court, as promised.
Don’t get your point on N Ireland. Since when did the UK take trade instructions from the USA especially not from the faux Irishman Biden? In truth the EU and their Irish Republic puppets insisted on the current bizarre situation as a spiteful response to Brexit. Other solutions are available. | | | |
| Whats your gas bill like ! on 00:53 - Dec 6 with 1149 views | Wints76 |
I've always thought the ECHR was completely separate to the EU and was nothing to do with the vote in 2016. I thought we were instrumental in setting it up (through Churchill?) and that everyone in Europe was signed up other than Russia and Belarus? Why do we need to leave? Why are our Human Rights a bad thing now? Explain it to me in football terms so I'll understand | | | |
| Whats your gas bill like ! on 06:08 - Dec 6 with 1100 views | huelinsaint |
The Labour Party exist to further the aims of the working classes ( or that's what's supposed to happen),that's why they were formed.The unions don't bully the Labour Party,they fund it in return for policies that they want,if Labour don't play ball they withdraw that funding.
It's similar to Russian oligarchs and dodgy business men funding the conservatives .
If you were promised that the UK would leave the ECHR you were lied to,as I said nothing to do with the EU.
The UK takes orders from the US because we're one of their vassal states in Europe.
Fatty was told if he provoked a border in Ireland he'd have no chance af a US/UK trade deal,that's why he lied to you.
The EU aren't being nasty to us because we left , they're just treating us as we wished,as a third country .
Interested to know what the other solutions to the Irish border question are. [Post edited 6 Dec 2022 6:11]
| | | |
| Whats your gas bill like ! on 09:05 - Dec 6 with 1040 views | dwayne_dibley |
"Brexit to me was control of our borders, and N. Ireland trading as part of the UK, plus leaving the ECHR "
going well then | |
| |
| Whats your gas bill like ! on 09:08 - Dec 6 with 1039 views | SalisburySaint |
I’m lucky too, I got a fixed rate Sept 21, so price increases will not impact me until Oct 23 | | | |
| Whats your gas bill like ! on 11:54 - Dec 6 with 987 views | franniesTache |
Yeah you're right the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU. It was set up in 1948 as a response to what had happened in Germany under Hitler, though didn't get jurisdiction for another 10 years.
Although a lot of people credit Churchill with founding it, it was actually the The Council of Europe (something that was created by Churchill in 1946) who set it up.
Unfortunately certain sections of the press who's owners have a vested interest in removing a body that stops people being exploited have conflated the two things - The EU & ECHR - on purpose to suit their ends. | | | |
| Whats your gas bill like ! on 11:56 - Dec 6 with 985 views | franniesTache |
Out of interest Baz' which of these articles of convention that form the basis of the ECHR are the ones you want removing?
Article 1 — obligation to respect human rights
The state has the responsibility to respect every individual’s human rights, as set out in the Convention itself.
Article 2 — right to life
We all have the right to life, and not be killed by another person.
The state must protect people’s lives by enforcing the law, protecting those in danger, and safeguard against accidental deaths.
Article 3 — prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment
Nobody, under any circumstances, can torture or abuse anyone else. We should never be treated in ways that cause us serious physical or mental suffering.
Article 4 — prohibition of slavery and forced labour
Nobody should ever be made a slave or forced to work against their will.
There are minor exceptions to this article, for example in some cases it is legal to require someone to work in if they’re in prison or the military services.
Article 5 — right to liberty and security
We can only be detained in certain circumstances, for example if we’ve been convicted by a court, or if we’re considered to be a danger to ourselves.
Article 6 — right to a fair trial
We have the right to a fair and public trial, within a reasonable amount of time, by an independent and unbiased judge.
If charged with an offence we should be assumed innocent until proven guilty.
Article 7 — no punishment without law
All crimes should be clearly defined by the law. We can only be found guilty of a criminal offence if there was a law against it at the time the act was committed. Once found guilty of a crime we cannot later be given a heavier sentence.
Article 8 — right to respect privacy and family life
This right exists to protect four things: our family life, our home, our private life, and our correspondence.
We have the right to live with our family and our loved ones.
Respect for the home guards against intrusion into where we live, or to protect us being forced from where we live without good reason.
Respect for private life protects our personal freedoms, including respect for our sexuality, the right not to be placed under unlawful surveillance, or for us not to have personal information spread about us against our will.
Respect for correspondence allows for us to communicate with others freely and in full privacy.
Article 9 — freedom of thought, conscience and religion
We all have the right to hold religious and other beliefs. We also have the right to change these beliefs when we choose. We should be free to worship and express our beliefs both in public and private spaces.
Article 10 — freedom of expression
We have the right for us to hold our own opinions, to express our views and ideas, and to share information with others.
This article can protect our right to express views that some may find unpopular or offensive.
Article 11 — freedom of assembly and association
We have the right to join with others to protect our common interests, to form trade unions political parties.
Importantly this article also exists to protect our right to hold meetings, and to assemble in groups to peacefully protest.
Article 12 — right to marry
We have the right marry who we want to, and to start a family.
Article 13 — right to an effective remedy
If our rights are violated then we must be able to challenge this through legal means. The state must make arrangement for this, and there may be compensation for any damage caused to us.
Article 14 — prohibition of discrimination
Our rights should never be denied to us due to any form of discrimination, whether due to our ‘sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status’.
Article 15 — derogation in time of emergency
A state can choose to ignore some specific rights in the ECHR at a time of war or other emergency threatening the life of the nation, but any removal of rights should be limited to those absolutely required by the situation. A state must always make sure these measures are consistent with its obligations under International Law.
Article 16 — restriction on political activity of non-nationals
A state can restrict the political activity of non-nationals, but this does not apply to the nationals of EU member states when in an EU country.
Article 17 — prohibition of abuse of rights
Nothing in the ECHR allows for any state, group or individual to destroy the rights and freedoms that the convention protects.
Article 18 — limitation on use of restriction of rights
The restrictions allowed by the convention should not be applied for any other purpose than those explained in the convention itself. | | | |
| Whats your gas bill like ! on 12:55 - Dec 6 with 967 views | saints__fan__73 |
Aren't these all covered by UK law anyway? | |
| |
| Whats your gas bill like ! on 12:56 - Dec 6 with 965 views | franniesTache |
Not currently/specifically no
edit to say: our versions tend to be done in case law, for example freedom of press is upheld by a case from the Sunday Times in 1979, that can at any point be overruled by another piece of case law if the ECHR aren't in existence.
One of the interesting things with UK law is that case law can change the law, but the ECHR overrides UK case law (as it should), so we have a secondary protection against abuses of government. [Post edited 6 Dec 2022 12:59]
| | | |
| Whats your gas bill like ! on 14:02 - Dec 6 with 944 views | Bazza |
Never said I wanted any ECHR Articles removed just their authority over our high courts. Partly to avoid litigants prolonging legal process after being dismissed by our courts. | | | |
| Whats your gas bill like ! on 16:54 - Dec 6 with 916 views | franniesTache |
But if their case is accepted by the ECHR then they must have a legal position to go on, and holding any court accountable to law is surely a good thing?
If you accept the articles of the convention are correct, and you accept that the court judges against those articles, then are you suggesting that the ethics of what's right or wrong change based on the geographic location of the court?
And if it's about shortening the judiciary process would you stop cases going to the uk supreme court because it was prolonging legal proceedings?
For me at least independent checks and balances, to reach the correct end decision, are surely a positive and not a negative. | | | |
| Whats your gas bill like ! on 17:08 - Dec 6 with 905 views | Bazza |
Mm interesting points but when do you stop? Surely the UK should not need to go outside of its courts if the matter is covered by UK laws. Would you go to the ECHR if they had Russian Iranian, and Chinese members? So why go to a court with most members not UK trained or perhaps not sympathetic to our culture. | | | |
| Whats your gas bill like ! on 17:20 - Dec 6 with 894 views | huelinsaint |
Why wouldn't they be sympathetic to our culture?
What's the difference culturally between a British judge( because there are British judges in the ECHR) and a German judge for example.
The European court of human rights wouldn't have an Iranian or Chinese judge by dint of those countries finding themselves in another continent.
Russia aren't in the ECHR | | | |
| Whats your gas bill like ! on 18:54 - Dec 6 with 852 views | Bazza |
You take me too literally, try Romania, Albania, Hungary judges for example.
More to the point why would you want to allow foreigners to be allowed to overrule our own judges? Especially when courts in different countries often have different legal systems?
Or are you suggesting our judges are not good enough? | | | |
| Whats your gas bill like ! on 19:48 - Dec 6 with 832 views | franniesTache |
It's not a case of our judges not being good enough, it's that there's a limited pool of judges that just read the articles of the ECHR and to have a fair and equitable system of law you need different voices on those readings.
By broadening the pool to the best judges in the field around the continent you'll get better decision making, and a system that can hold in check judiciaries at national level that can be swayed by both government and public opinion.
In an ideal world there would be a global court that overrides the continent based one, but that would need all countries in the world to agree to the same articles of convention, something that's deeply unrealistic.
Especially when you consider that the UN convention on the rights of children has only one major country that hasn't signed it, the USA (the other two are Somali and Sudan) which shows even something as basic as the right of a child can be used as a political tool [Post edited 6 Dec 2022 19:48]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
