http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... ajid-javid

Personally I've no faith in the HRA, those who oversee it, or those who seek to implement it or destroy it in the UK!

Defining what the fcuk it is and how it should be used would stop the nonsense on both sides.

Prisoner voting rights and whole-of-life sentences without review seem like flimsy excuses to walk out on a treaty obligation.
And it is a truly [LIFTED] example to set for the likes of Russia which has been repeatedly prosecuted in the ECHR for murdering Chechens.

How about sending foreign murders etc back home after their sentences etc? Seems like a good example to me.
Not to mention the ideological point that our courts should rule on our laws.

Oh pffft!

The Supreme Court of the UK is appointed by the unelected Monarch on the advice of the Prime Minister (who is not directly elected and is appointed by the Monarch).

"Our" courts are no more democratically accountable than those of the ECHR.

Sent from my Lumia 625 using Tapatalk

Not entirely accurate. The appointment by the queen is a formality and nothing more than lip service. The justices are recommended to the PM a select committee, made up of MPs, who have been elected by their constituents.

The rubber stamping bit is a tad bogus, but the the actual selection is a little bit more democratic than you're making out.

Oooo - where to start?

Let's start with the notion that the MPs are elected. Due to the beauty of our FPTP system, many MPs never got more than 50% of the vote and so do not have a democratic mandate. It is a rare thing for any UK government to enjoy a majority of the popular vote.
Then let's deal with the Select Committees. Normally a committee chair is chosen by MPs but thereafter the members are chosen by a strange combination of invitation and party agreement. In the Blair/Brown years, this led to there being a blacklist of Labour MPs who were left in no doubt that they would never be allowed to serve on any important Select Committee. Funnily enough, this blacklist seemed to correspond almost exactly with those MPs that had the audacity to ignore their party and represent their constituents. Things have been better in this parliament but there's no guarantee of this continuing.
Furthermore, appointments to the Supreme Court are chaired not by an MP but the appointed President of the Supreme Court (currently a second-generation German immigrant ex-merchant banker of pensionable age).
So, the unelected Monarch appoints an unaccountable judge on the advice of an unelected committee through the office of the appointed Prime Minister (who doesn't *have* to be a member of the House of Commons) who is himself chosen, not on his electoral mandate but on the basis of his ability to pass a money bill through the house.
There is no part of our judicial system that is either democratic or representative so the idea that the ECHR can be less legitimate is one I find laughable.
Sent from my Lumia 625 using Tapatalk

Judges are officers of the law, not representatives of the people.

It's up to the legislature to provide laws that have popular consent, and it is for the judiciary to apply those laws without fear or favour.

Exactly my point. Not only are democratic and representative legitimacy not necessary, they simply aren't there - neither by accident nor intent.
So once we decide that "our" courts can have legitimacy, completely outside of any democratic process, the only difference between the two courts is in the nationality of the judges and the scope of their judgements.
Basically it boils down to Johnny English doesn't want Harry Hun being in charge of anything - unless of course that Hun is the Monarch or the President of the Supreme Court.

If you have ten minutes, it's worth reading this PDF. It's about the organisation Liberty, and covers exactly what the various conventions and acts concerning human rights are about.

https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk ... -final.pdf

I found it enlightening.

i read that report some years ago and am a strong believer in the HRA enshrined within British law
i do not agree with all the decisions and the use by individuals to abuse the very same HRA for their own ends
but that is the privilege of having the HRA enshrined within British law to decide, without fear lett or hindrance, yes, no or maybe

but i will defend and support the HRA enshrined within British law, for the majority of us its our only defence against a dictatorship ...

MSR and I just agreed

Nobody move - l want to take in this moment

Sent from my Lumia 625 using Tapatalk

if that is a fact, i may just start to get religion ...

Did you really agree? MSR's wording was characteristically vague.

I wasn't sure if he was consenting to having judgments of an international (which in Tory speak is "foreign") court setting legally binding precedents for UK courts.
He might have just been saying we should enshrine the rights into our own law and allow our own judges to be the ultimate and final arbiters of its application. Which is pretty much the Tory plan.

if you have read this ...
https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk ... -final.pdf

then you will find the answer ...

Or you could give an answer if you have one.