Tories and Daily Mail hit new low

[Cyberman]

For what it's worth:
"The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country, the Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country, the Times is read by people who actually do run the country, the Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country, the Financial Times is read by people who own the country, the Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country and the Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it is."

—Jim Hacker, Yes, Prime Minister

"Sun readers don't care who runs the country, as long as she's got big tits."

-- Bernard Woolley, ibid.

[abaris]

Among other things, it means that the UK can bring back the death penalty or even deport immigrants, both European and non-European

And what a huge step for civilization that would be.

Thanks for clarifying that it means exactly what it appears to mean.

[Dystopia]

Among other things, it means that the UK can bring back the death penalty or even deport immigrants, both European and non-European

And what a huge step for civilization that would be.

Thanks for clarifying that it means exactly what it appears to mean.

I'm not an expert on UK Law but I know for a fact that the ECHR forbids the death penalty for almost all crimes (I think exceptions are made in times of war and crimes against the State like national treason, etc.) and because the European court for human rights has sovereign institutional power it can force you trough directives and warnings to create laws to fulfil the principles of the declaration - So if Britain planned to bring back the death penalty obviously the court would not allow it and if Britain had the death penalty and then jointed the convention it would be mandatory to abolish it as a ratification requirement... 

I am not saying I agree with bringing back the death penalty but it is one of the things that would be allowed - Deporting immigrants is a more controversial issue because non-Europeans can be deported after some requirements are filled but citizens from EU member States are a harder, more complicated case - One of the reasons I think UKIP is stupid is because they don't realize getting out of the EU would only allow them to deport EU citizens but they are mostly against non-European (Muslims, Pakistanis, etc.) immigrants.

In a Liberal-democrat-capitalist State the death penalty is unthinkable and incompatible with our conception of human rights, for those who believe it exists - The story would be different in a non-liberal State because our views on morality, human rights and individual freedoms would drastically change in a way we cannot begin to imagine.

I think Brits may want some sovereignty back and obviously both the EU and the ECHR are a limitation, but as long as a new bill of rights is made I don't see the problem - Some human rights are extremely hard and annoying to fulfil and then there are conflicts between several people's rights. Blasphemy laws are caused partly by the ECRH and the UN's declaration of Human Rights because religious freedom is put on an almost absolute pedestal. Other rights I can think of that are complicated to manage and fulfil are the right to work (you can't employ everyone), the right to a home (what if I refuse to pay the rent? the right is absolute), the right to free speech (the ECRH openly allows restrictions to protect "public order" so there are contradictions between the notion of free speech, human dignity and enacted censorship we've been witnessing all over Europe not only with blasphemy laws but also with excessive numbers of prosecutions merely for offending someone or being plain stupid)

[abaris]

Deporting immigrants is a more controversial issue because non-Europeans can be deported after some requirements are filled but citizens from EU member States are a harder, more complicated case - One of the reasons I think UKIP is stupid is because they don't realize getting out of the EU would only allow them to deport EU citizens but they are mostly against non-European (Muslims, Pakistanis, etc.) immigrants.

Yeaha, but you can't go cherry picking. The way Cameron's and formerly Thatcher's government operated in the EU questions the whole meaning of the community. If the fear mongering works and the Brits want out, fine, give them the boot and let's see where that leads them. Not because I dislike Britain as a country let alone the people living there, but because you have to buy the whole package when joining a club.

When I voted for my country joining the EU, some 20 years ago, I voted for a community based on exactly the human rights being questioned right now and not for some neocon economical experiment without any strings attached.

[Ben Davis]

Since human rights do not exist I don't oppose this position

You've been watching too much Stephan Molyneux  

The ECHR is just a form for international organizations to control States trough the imposition of an absolute morality based on eternal human sin. There is no such thing as universal human rights, and the declaration is a bunch of bullshit starting with the first article. This is the DM so it's not exactly reliable for any major event happening on earth right now, but even if it was true it does not mean people will lose rights, it means the European court for Human Rights cannot force the UK to abide by those idealistic principles. Among other things, it means that the UK can bring back the death penalty or even deport immigrants, both European and non-European

The real problem is that the ECHR is more progressive than the Tories want. They want to be able to reduce individual entitlements and ECHR gives the people too many legally supportive and precedented opportunities to oppose them. For example, if representatives of disadvantaged people have to go to the UN to battle austerity measures that would kill them, it's more difficult than if they have to go to the European courts. Similarly, it would be more difficult for immigrant deportees to challenge UK rulings without ECHR. I don't imagine that 'Call Me Dave' is going to chuck out the rights to Self-determination or Freedom of Expression although Rights to Protest will probably take a hammering.

[Pyrrho]

I personally don't know anyone who gives a flying fuck about them but the media keeps pushing this shit out as if we do.

It's the same over here, but then people do start to care because it's beaten into them relentlessly

I was hoping maybe American royal worship was a sub-conscious desire to be back under the boot of your former colonial masters but ah well

It is really hard to say what is going on in the minds (and I use that term loosely) of Americans who are interested in the activities of the British royalty.  My guess is that it is largely the same sort of person who cares about celebrities generally.  Perhaps it is motivated by a desire to believe in fairy tales, of being rich and loved and etc.  Many little girls in the U.S. want to be princesses, and I seem to recall little boys wanting to be knights in shining armor and other such things, or princes or kings (one can think of Henry VIII jousting, while being king with near absolute power).  Maybe too many Americans never grow up.  Since we do not have any royalty in the U.S., British royalty is the nearest thing to royalty that we have, given our cultural connection with Britain.

The American attitude toward Britain is very strange.  It seems to be a mixture of admiration and envy, with contempt and disdain as well.  It depends on context, the moment, and which Americans we are talking about.

Maybe you will want to ask a sociologist (or psychiatrist or both) about this (or research what such people have to say about this, if anything), and see if you can get a clear answer about what is going on.  My guess is, the answer isn't going to be pretty, and is not going to be complimentary to human reasoning.

[Napoléon]

And at the same time he has tripled university fees and rolled back social security.

What in the flying fuck does this have to do with the price of bread?

Oh, who introduced university fees in the first place?

[downbeatplumb]

I just read a something that said that they want a "british" constitution rather than a "human" rights act so that the law could be manipulated to not apply to non-british.