Meanwhile in Pyongyang...

[DodgyAgent]

That's like arguing that Jimmy Savile proves the age of consent is unnecessary.

That is just about the most ridiculous statement you have ever made! It is illegal to kill someone within existing UK laws. . As for the age of consent the UK people are mature enough to democratically enshrine a law that supports this without any human rights "act" being necessary.

[Mich the Tester]

That is just about the most ridiculous statement you have ever made! It is illegal to kill someone within existing UK laws. . As for the age of consent the UK people are mature enough to democratically enshrine a law that supports this without any human rights "act" being necessary.

No, DA, your logic is failing here. You claimed that the death of David Kelly proves we don't need human rights legislation; the legislation didn't work in that case so it's unnecessary. The British legislation failed as well. I simply translated YOUR reasoning to another crime of similar magnitude and to demonstrate the gap in the logic you were using. Of course it would be ridiculous to claim Jimmy Savile's fiddlings make the age of consent unnecessary; that's why it's ridiculous to claim that Kelly's death makes human rights legislation unnecessary. I can't help feeling that when you see the capital letter 'E' it sometimes clouds your reasoning when discussing anything that might be Europe-wide, even if it has nothing to do with the EU.

Your last sentence; I'd put it differently; the UK's democracy is indeed 'mature enough to democratically enshrine a law that supports this'. Churchill didn't insist on Britain signing up to the ECHR because he didn't think that's the case; he knew it was the case, and he realised that if Britain were to have any influence on states where democracy is less mature then it woud have to bind itself by these rules as well. Otherwise, the moment a British ambassador makes any kind of representation to another European government about how it's treating it's people, that government, along with others, will simply say 'well you didn't sign the treaty so we don't need to listen to you'.

[d000hg]

Now see, all those 'hooman rights' aren't such a bad thing after all. Yes, sometimes people twist the idea and make it look a bit silly, but really, things aren't so bad here in the UK or Euroland.

Doing a porn film when you're his ex is pretty damn silly though

[DodgyAgent]

Doing a porn film when you're his ex is pretty damn silly though

you believe that?

[DodgyAgent]

No, DA, your logic is failing here. You claimed that the death of David Kelly proves we don't need human rights legislation; the legislation didn't work in that case so it's unnecessary. The British legislation failed as well. I simply translated YOUR reasoning to another crime of similar magnitude and to demonstrate the gap in the logic you were using. Of course it would be ridiculous to claim Jimmy Savile's fiddlings make the age of consent unnecessary; that's why it's ridiculous to claim that Kelly's death makes human rights legislation unnecessary. I can't help feeling that when you see the capital letter 'E' it sometimes clouds your reasoning when discussing anything that might be Europe-wide, even if it has nothing to do with the EU.

Your last sentence; I'd put it differently; the UK's democracy is indeed 'mature enough to democratically enshrine a law that supports this'. Churchill didn't insist on Britain signing up to the ECHR because he didn't think that's the case; he knew it was the case, and he realised that if Britain were to have any influence on states where democracy is less mature then it woud have to bind itself by these rules as well. Otherwise, the moment a British ambassador makes any kind of representation to another European government about how it's treating it's people, that government, along with others, will simply say 'well you didn't sign the treaty so we don't need to listen to you'.

Your second point though ridiculous does have merit, though clearly you are scratching around for another argument to support your point.As for the David Kelly affair you are basing your argument on David Kelly on the assumption that there is something more sinister at play. Human rights act or not there is no evidence that this is the case. . The Human rights act as far as the Uk is concerned adds nothing to the UKs legal system unless you can show me some examples where it has worked.