Michael Pinto-Duschinsky and the Policy Exchange engaged in a fraud
"It is open to question, for example, whether the Strasbourg Court was justified in challenging long-standing UK law concerning the voting rights of prisoners, given that
Parliament had expressed a settled opinion on the issue".
Michael Pinto-Duschinsky gets Nul Points for this effort. Could do better. In fact he should do a lot better if he wants to score with me.
The case is called Hirst v UK (No2) for a reason, the challenge was mine and not the Court's challenge. It is unsettling for Parliament because the Court ruled in my favour against the UK. Tough!
It is not open to question. Accept it, and let's move on.
The Court's jurisdiction comes under the Treaty of London 1949 (Statute of the Council of Europe). And under the Convention the Court decision is final. Nowhere does it say under the Convention, that this right is subject to whatever rubbish Michael Pinto-Duschinsky writes in a dodgy report. He is earning his crust by piping the tune called for by the payer the Policy Exchange, a political organisation pretending to be a charity.
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
No comments:
Post a Comment