By the way I can laugh at funny jokes even when I am the subject and the joke is way off my point, but you are not actually funny and it is continual so appears to be your argument?

This is how politicians try to bring organisations such as the European Court of Human Rights into disrepute which take an issue where it is clear there is a violation of an article, regardless of the victim.

If a terrorist has had rights, such as a the right to a fair trial (Art.6 ECHR) refused the Court will look at that issue ... if a terrorist can have that right revoked, in principle so can an old lady accused of shoplifting ...

Politicians and those looking for cheap points will ignore the issue being protected or discussed and scream at every opportunity "terrorist" I think you are showing your colors here ... 

might be wrong though and you really think to keep shouting vape is funny?

Can someone briefly explain what I missed with the vaping gag?? I don't really get it.

According to him, it was his major reason for voting leave. Does it need a more detailed explanation?

Something to do with an EU ban on e-cig advertisements being a violation of freedom of speech or something like that. I'll try find the original post for you.

I think vaping is evil. I base that on nothing.

Here you go.

(June 24, 2016 at 7:47 am)madog Wrote: I voted out, regardless of whether it would be beneficial financially ....

I believe in the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and that European Nations should be held to evolved principles built on the Convention ....

The EU accepted that it should adhere to the ECHR, but have refused until now to respect the principles ...

Note, many minority situations over the time the EU have acted as a dictator have slowly made all those affected by minority issues sit up and say up yours EU ....

I have presently got a case before the European Parliament. because the European Commission can presently get away with Human right violations as they self regulate 

As a vaper, I have been fighting a directive that blatantly violates Art.10 of the ECHR by banning the freedom of expression (speech) of electronic cigarette users ... If they can do it to vapers to save Big Tobacco they can do it to anyone 

And here.

(June 24, 2016 at 8:28 am)madog Wrote: I could bore you with pages of explanation that banning virtual any expression about a product that has been accepted by many, including UK public health, from being discussed across all media, is a Human Right violation.

It is accepted that vaping is 95% safer than smoking, and could save billions of lives, but it loses lots of tax revenue for the EU indirectly.

If a nation tried to ban freedom of expression they would be in deep water, yet the EU can do it with virtual impunity.

If you wish to be dictated too by such a dictatorship OK, but I don't .... even if it costs me in other aspects of my life.

Dictatorships only get worse, which has been happening with the EU 

(June 26, 2016 at 9:05 am)abaris Wrote: According to him, it was his major reason for voting leave. Does it need a more detailed explanation?

I'm sorry but it wasn't... his argument has been trivialised to being about vaping when that was just an example. I think he makes a good point about the EU not being bound by the ECHR. Not a good enough point to make me change my position but enough to be worth thinking about and something to hope to change if we get the EU back.

(June 26, 2016 at 9:16 am)Emjay Wrote:

(June 26, 2016 at 9:05 am)abaris Wrote: According to him, it was his major reason for voting leave. Does it need a more detailed explanation?

I'm sorry but it wasn't... his argument has been trivialised to being about vaping when that was just an example. I think he makes a good point about the EU not being bound by the ECHR. Not a good enough point to make me change my position but enough to be worth thinking about and something to hope to change if we get the EU back.

I'll be honest I didn't really read a lot of his posts myself. I'll give them all a proper read later.

(June 26, 2016 at 9:16 am)Emjay Wrote:

(June 26, 2016 at 9:05 am)abaris Wrote: According to him, it was his major reason for voting leave. Does it need a more detailed explanation?

I'm sorry but it wasn't... his argument has been trivialised to being about vaping when that was just an example. I think he makes a good point about the EU not being bound by the ECHR. Not a good enough point to make me change my position but enough to be worth thinking about and something to hope to change if we get the EU back.

Thanks ... yes and I could agree with staying in the EU if they finally, after 42 years accede to the ECHR an actual requirement of any Nation joining the EU.

It is obscene that the EU dictate that to join their club you must first be a member of the Council of Europe and to be a member of the Council of Europe you must ratify the ECHR ..... When the EU refuse to accede ....

The actually reality of the above is an EU Directive can be made that breaches the ECHR and the EU members must comply, yet their membership of the EU doesn't release them from their ECHR obligations .... They are then liable to EU sanctions or ECHR sanctions, depending if they do or do not comply with an EU directive that breaches the ECHR ...

Just actually think about that ....