|
|
Post by omnipleasant on Feb 10, 2009 13:54:53 GMT
"have you any idea what being whisked off to a maximum security federal prison in the US would do to someone's life?"
How often does this happen to innocent UK citizens without any trial here or over there? Is it really more important, in the grand scheme of things, than the quality of life of millions of the poorest citizens in the UK? Would the Tories change it?
|
|
|
|
Post by omnipleasant on Feb 10, 2009 13:56:16 GMT
Fair enough VHW. I don't expect non-lefties to vote Labour to be honest.
|
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Feb 10, 2009 13:57:29 GMT
Frankly, if there were a party even vaguely competent on the economy I'd vote for them ahead of this shower of raging thatcherite incompetents who are scared to nationalise banks when they need nationalising to stop the economy from imploding; who are scared to tell the banks how to lend, at what rate, and who to, even though they own the said banks. And, at the same time, play with racist fire by using BNP fascist slogans just at a time when we need free trade and movement of labour with the rest of the EU but where a bit of juvenile retarded nationalistic willy-waving is the pathetically populist response. A mixture of retarded populism mixed with being wedded to pathetic thatcherite small-state low-interference in the markets noeliberalism.
They're terrible. And if the other major party wasn't just the same, it would be a very good thing.
|
|
VikingHumpingWitch
New Member
"My philosophy in life is keep dry and keep away from children. I got it from a matchbox."
Posts: 8,018
|
Post by VikingHumpingWitch on Feb 10, 2009 13:59:34 GMT
I don't know how often it has been used - the only cases I know of are the Nat West Three and the hacker fella (none of whom are terrorists or accused or suspected of terrorist involvement, which is odd as this was meant to be an anti-terrorist measure). It took just over a month from when it came into law before it was used.
I don't think the quality of life of the poorest is likely to be as much affected by the Tories as you do. They might have a bit less than the little they've got and that would be bad but I find myself thinking rights to liberty and justice are actually more important than rights to new electronic equipment and nice clothes.
|
|
|
|
Post by flatandy on Feb 10, 2009 13:59:55 GMT
Fair enough VHW. I don't expect non-lefties to vote Labour to be honest. Lefties? This is the labour government that invades Iraq, that refuses to nationalise banks, that cuts regulation on the banks, that doesn't tax the rich, that - even when it owns the banks - let's them operate at "market conditions", even when the government wants them not to. Lefty, my hairy gonads. |
|
VikingHumpingWitch
New Member
"My philosophy in life is keep dry and keep away from children. I got it from a matchbox."
Posts: 8,018
|
Post by VikingHumpingWitch on Feb 10, 2009 14:00:26 GMT
Fair enough VHW. I don't expect non-lefties to vote Labour to be honest. Haha ok Nick Cohen. I don't expect lefties to vote at all in the UK seeing as there's no party close to lefty policies. |
|
|
|
Post by omnipleasant on Feb 10, 2009 14:00:35 GMT
I agree with Andy, mind you. Their small-stateTory tendencies and retarded small-minded borderline racist nationalist populism is much worse than the grossly exaggerated liberal luxury concerns on "civil libererties".
However, as I said, on all counts they are miles better than any realistic alternative.
|
|
|
|
Post by omnipleasant on Feb 10, 2009 14:03:15 GMT
On all counts.
In response to Conservative Party Leader David Cameron’s speech at the Conservative Party Conference today, Director of Liberty, Shami Chakrabarti said:
“David Cameron’s attack on the human rights act is dangerous and disappointing nonsense.
It is inconsistent both with the more reasoned parts of his speech and the new brand of social responsibility he is trying to project for his party.
It’s one thing to have a vague aspiration of what your ideal Bill of Rights might look like, but it’s downright irresponsible to mislead the public about the protection they already have.”
|
|
|
|
Post by tarrant on Feb 10, 2009 14:25:10 GMT
It was populist nonsense much like everything else that idiot comes out with.
Reality is the Human Rights Act gives us very little we didn't have before under common law, except now it's written down.
It is attacked because it is associated with Europe. Those sections of the press which make the loudest noise egged on by various members of the Tory party are really attacking the entire European concept.
Britain doesn't stand a chance in hell without Europe.
Cameron knows it. He also know that a significant section of his party wants to take us out. So he says nothing but joins in this silly chorus hoping to placate his anti-Europeans while not appearing a fool by supporting them.
|
|
|
|
Post by omnipleasant on Feb 10, 2009 14:31:09 GMT
"the only cases I know of are the Nat West Three and the hacker fella"
Hang on. Weren't these straightforward extradition cases, using laws that have been in place for ages? I seem to remember endless court proceedings on the cases. I think you're mixing up "long standing judicial processes" with "Labour's trampling of civil liberties wah"
"I find myself thinking rights to liberty and justice are actually more important than rights to new electronic equipment and nice clothes. "
This actually makes me fume. Hate to say it, but it just screams "well-to-do, lofty out of touch liberal luxury". I mean, for millions and millions of people on the margins it's not about "having new gadgets". It's about existence and drudgery and struggling and not having any chance to realise any potential because doors are slammed closed, etc etc. Labour's policies are light years ahead of the Tories on that front.
And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the civil liberties stuff is irrelevant in it's own right, but it does pale into insignificance by comparison. We are talking day-to-day existence of millions of the least well off Vs liberal sensibilities that affect very little, if any, people. (and which, of course, wouldn't be affected in the slightest by a change of government to the Tories, unlike the real stuff)
|
|
VikingHumpingWitch
New Member
"My philosophy in life is keep dry and keep away from children. I got it from a matchbox."
Posts: 8,018
|
Post by VikingHumpingWitch on Feb 10, 2009 14:44:45 GMT
Hang on. Weren't these straightforward extradition cases, using laws that have been in place for ages? No. I just don't think that people are going to be starving to death if the Tories get in. Maybe I'm burying my head in the sand but I just don't see that happening. They'll have less than they have now, much as the rest of us, but they won't die. Someone who hasn't got much now (although of course as you're always saying, the poor are so much better off now than they were) having a bit less in the future just doesn't strike me as equally important to the civil liberties stuff. Sorry, but it doesn't. |
|
|
|
Post by omnipleasant on Feb 10, 2009 14:51:17 GMT
I don't know where you're getting your info from, but everything I've read about the Natwest Three suggests it went through proper judicial processes. Their case went all the way to the court of appeal (one of those ANCIENT FREEDOMS that are supposedly being trampled on...) and the European Court of Human Rights (that the lovely liberal Tories want to prise us away from...).
And I suppose we'll have to beg to differ. You think that making the lives and opportunities of millions of poorest citizens much worse for years to come is a good thing if it means getting rid of one civil liberties infringing government and replacing it with an equally bad one. I don't.
|
|
mids
New Member
Posts: 61,078
Member is Online
|
Post by mids on Feb 10, 2009 14:54:10 GMT
I'll be voting for the next Tory government in 2010. Have I said?
|
|
|
|
Post by omnipleasant on Feb 10, 2009 14:57:14 GMT
I'm a lifelong Conservative voter, but this is the worst I've ever seen my beloved party and for the first time ever I think I'll vote Labour.
My main concern is civil liberties. As someone who values our ancient, hard won freedoms I couldn't vote for a party that wants to scrap the Human Rights Act.
|
|
sushimo
New Member
One tequilla, Two Tequilla, Three Tequilla - Floor.
Posts: 243
|
Post by sushimo on Feb 10, 2009 15:01:18 GMT
I'm a lifelong Conservative voter, but this is the worst I've ever seen my beloved party and for the first time ever I think I'll vote Labour. My main concern is civil liberties. As someone who values our ancient, hard won freedoms I couldn't vote for a party that wants to scrap the Human Rights Act.   Nice one! |
|
|
|
Post by tarrant on Feb 10, 2009 15:06:15 GMT
I don't know where you're getting your info from, but everything I've read about the Natwest Three suggests it went through proper judicial processes. The case rested on the arrangements made between Blair and Bush on extradition. The arrangements were intended to make extradition easier between the two countries. Bush reneged on the deal, Blair didn't. There was a further complication in that the British authorities had already decided there was insufficient evidence to prosecute under British law. In Texas the law makes it easier. Having been discharged by the British authorities a second chance at prosecution was made by extraditing them. A throughly disreputable case. Tony Blair has committed treason. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NatWest_Three#Extradition_inequality_argument |
|
VikingHumpingWitch
New Member
"My philosophy in life is keep dry and keep away from children. I got it from a matchbox."
Posts: 8,018
|
Post by VikingHumpingWitch on Feb 10, 2009 15:07:24 GMT
The Three were extradited under the new extradition treaty which requires the US to provide exactly no evidence at all before we hand over our citizens gift-wrapped. I suspect the court cases you recall were fighting the terms of the extradition.
Also worth noting that the crime was committed in Britain against a British based bank, and the suspects were British, but the UK prosecutors did nothing because of a lack of evidence. How lucky than that none at all was required to spirit them off to the US.
Still, anything for the War on Terror, eh.
|
|
|
|
Post by omnipleasant on Feb 10, 2009 15:11:00 GMT
Fair enough. That's pretty unsavoury. Still, they got a good few fair hearings. Hardly 1984.
|
|
VikingHumpingWitch
New Member
"My philosophy in life is keep dry and keep away from children. I got it from a matchbox."
Posts: 8,018
|
Post by VikingHumpingWitch on Feb 10, 2009 15:14:00 GMT
At this point I'd like to add that the treaty requires the UK to provide satisfactory evidence for a US citizen to be extradited to face prosecution in Britain, and there are a number of IRA suspects who as yet are still floating around America because the UK hasn't provided enough to warrant their extradition. You know, actual terrorists of the kind we were told this treaty was to help stop - not bankers and computer nerds with Aspergers. Doesn't it make you proud of your country?
|
|
|
|
Post by tarrant on Feb 10, 2009 15:15:05 GMT
Fair enough. That's pretty unsavoury. Still, they got a good few fair hearings. Hardly 1984. And prosecution. And a prison sentence, which they are serving in a British prison. Blair has given the American courts authority over our lives in our country. Blair has made us second class citizens in our own country. Blair is a traitor to the sovereignty of the UK. |
|
