Priti Patel is the secret love child of Idi Amin :-)
The issue isn’t prisoners getting the vote ... it’s about who really governs Britain
Says Tory MP Pritti Patel
Big decisions ...
Europe has left Britain powerless
By PRITTI PATEL,
Conservative MP for Witham
Published: 24th May
2012
BARMY human rights laws and rulings from unaccountable judges at the European Court of Human Rights have left this country powerless to punish criminals and keep British people safe.
In recent months we’ve seen them block efforts
to deport hate preacher Abu Qatada and force us to release dangerous
foreign criminals on to our streets.
On Tuesday, they again demanded that this country
gives prisoners the right to vote, as they claim the ban violates
their human rights.
If Parliament does not comply within six months,
the bureaucrats have threatened to make taxpayers foot a
multi-million-pound bill to compensate criminals affected.
Europe’s latest attempt to bully this country
into submission and grant criminals the right to vote has little to
do with human rights — it is a disgraceful attack on our democracy.
The issue has gone beyond whether prisoners should
vote and is now one of who governs Britain — unelected European
judges or our democratically elected MPs?
Irate ... Pritti Patel CAMERA PRESS
The answer should be obvious. Parliament has
passed laws to prohibit convicted prisoners from voting, as part of
punishment for crimes so serious that they lost their liberty.
Last year, MPs voted overwhelmingly to keep the
ban.
The public are also against prisoners voting, our
domestic courts have rejected it and Prime Minster David Cameron says
he is sickened by it.
Only Europe’s unelected judges think that the
voting ban discriminates against prisoners and want to see murderers,
rapists, paedophiles and violent thugs given voting rights.
What has made this week’s judgement even more
alarming is that it flies in the face of an agreement last month to
reform the European Court of Human Rights.
That agreement, hailed by UK Justice Secretary Ken
Clarke, was meant to stop Europe’s judges meddling in reasonable
decisions reached by domestic courts.
It has clearly failed to do so, as this week’s
judgement yet again reveals Europe’s judges will stop at nothing in
their quest to grab ever more powers away from this country and its
people.
This leaves the Government with a simple
choice. It must stand up for the interests of the British people,
Parliament and democracy by keeping the ban on prisoners voting.
As most people in this country want to see laws
made in Britain, the Prime Minister would be widely supported if he
sent a resounding “No” to Europe.
He would also be praised if he pressed ahead with
scrapping current human rights laws and introduced instead a UK Bill
of Rights.
Not only would this action stop prisoners getting
the right to vote, it would prevent the European Court of Human
Rights from again meddling in our laws — and safeguard British
democracy.
Comment:
The issue for me is about getting convicted prisoners the vote.
So why is Priti Patel telling lies, and why is Rupert Murdoch publishing these lies?
According to administrative and constitutional law the Government governs Britain.
However, the way that some politicians suck up to Rupert Murdoch perhaps it is he who really governs Britain?
Perhaps, Priti Patel should have to explain her close links with the media to the Leveson inquiry?
Who is Priti Patel to claim that human rights laws are barmy? Before entering politics she studied economics. This hardly makes her a good judge on a legal issue. She did not become a MP on her merits, but because the Tory party wanted to create the impression that it was interested in diversity. A constituency was created and she was selected to represent it in Parliament. This kind of gerrymandering probably prevented a more competent person representing the electorate.
Patel fails to provide any evidence for her claims that the ECtHR judges are unaccountable and that Britain's criminal justice system is powerless to punish criminals, and that the State fails to protect the public. She lied, she lied, she lied
The ECtHR is right to consider whether a human rights violating State should deport someone to another human rights violating State where torture is widespread. Patel provides no evidence that Britain has been forced to release dangerous criminals on to our streets.
The ECtHR was right to reaffirm its ruling on prisoners votes.
The UK State, Executive, Parliament and Judiciary, has been found guilty of a human rights violation and added insult to injury by not providing a remedy to the victim and failing to prevent other victims suffering the same fate. The UK suggested to the ECtHR that in its view if damages for the loss of the vote should be paid then £1,000 was a fair price to pay. Had the UK done what it agreed to under our obligations in international law, then other victims would not have arisen and only £1,000 might have needed to have been paid. Now that £1,000 is likely to be multiplied by several thousand and the final bill is likely to be many millions of pounds. David Cameron has stated that he would rather pay compensation than give prisoners the vote. However, he is not rich enough for this and he is aware that the taxpayers will pick up the bill for his reckless attitude to human rights. He should do the right and honourable thing and resign. But the Bullingdon Club bully boy is too much of a coward to take responsibility for his actions.
The UK tried to bully the ECtHR to change its judgment on prisoners votes. However, the ECtHR stood up to the bullying UK State. The ECtHR is the guardian of human rights, democracy and rule of law for Europeans. What is disgraceful is Patel's and Murdoch's attack upon the ECtHR.
The issue went beyond whether prisoners should vote when the ECtHR decided the issue in the affirmative. It is not an issue of who governs Britain, this is spin by Patel and Murdoch. The ECtHR judges, unlike those in the UK, are elected. It is debateable whether Patel was democratically elected. As for the last general election, given that a large group of citizens were denied the franchise it calls into question the legitimacy of Parliament.
What is obvious is that either Patel has failed to grasp the issue or if she has then she is so corrupt that she is trying to corrupt the minds of the public. Subsequently to the UK passing a law to ban convicted prisoners from voting, this was challenged by me and the EHR ruled in my favour. The subsequent vote in the House of Commons by some MPs was in violation of European and international law, and the ECtHR was right not to give any weight to its legitimacy.
My challenge was against the UK State, and the State attempted to hide behind what it claimed public opinion stated. However, the ECtHR rejected this argument. In the consultation exercises conducted under the Labour administration, the public supported all convicted prisoners getting the vote. Once again Patel has proved to be a liar. The Administrative Court did reject my claim, but the court was subsequently found to be guilty of a human rights violation. David Cameron has misled Parliament with his physically ill claim, and breached the Ministerial Code by ignoring the ECtHR judgment in my case. It maybe that he is using Patel as a shield against his having to do the honourable thing and resign.
The elected judges of the ECtHR ruled that the blanket ban on voting was indiscriminate. The ECtHR ruled that my claim that it discriminated against convicted prisoners was not accepted under Article 14. The ECtHR wants to see those vulnerable to State abuse of power to be empowered by the franchise. This is only reasonable under the circumstances.
The Scoppola v Italy (No3) judgment merely reaffirmed the ECtHR ruling in my case. The ECtHR has been undergoing reform for over 10 years. The Interlaken, Izmir and Brighton Declarations called for reforms of certain Member States of the Council of Europe, those guilty of failing to comply with ECtHR judgments. The UK agreed the need to reform itself but has then failed to properly institute the needed reforms.
As I understand it, Kenneth Clarke warned that any reforms of the ECtHR advocated by some politicians and certain media would have to get the support of the other 46 Member States. The UK failed to achieve this at the Brighton Conference. The ECtHR does not concern itself with reasonable decisions reached by domestic courts, but it does concern itself with decisions which are not compatible with the human rights under the ECHR.
Clearly the UK failed to convince the other 46 Member States that its intentions were honourable. Scoppola also shows that the UK failed to convince the ECtHR that it should be allowed to continue its human rights abuse of convicted prisoners. As a Member State of the Council of Europe and European Union the UK State does not have the lawful power to abuse human rights. Patel shows how dishonest she is when she attempts to cloud the issue with references to the country and the people. It is clear incitement.
Patel then goes on to claim that my case leaves the Government with a simple choice. However, she then fails to state what that choice is. Unless she is referring to Hobson's Choice? A simple choice might be whether to buy a bar of milk chocolate or plain chocolate. Instead, Patel's type of choice is racist and xenophobic which is in keeping with Murdoch's The Sun policy of what constitutes as news. The ECHR is for all citizens in the UK and it is disingenous for her to state that the Government must only stand up for the interests of British people. She is not fit to judge what is in the interests of Parliament. Nor is she competent as a Cameron "A Lister" to decide what is in the interests of democracy. Patel advocates what Murdoch advocates and that is to retain the blanket ban on convicted prisoners from voting. She does not represent her constituents but instead represents Murdoch's interests. The interests of human rights, democracy and rule of law means that she and Murdoch are wrong on this issue. It is in the interests of Parliament to honour the UK's international law treaties, and comply with the ECtHR judgment in my case.
Parliament does make laws in Britain. I suspect that most people in this country are aware of this fact which appears to have escaped Patel's mind. Perhaps, she has been brainwashed by Murdoch? In any event, I doubt that David Cameron would get a vote of confidence from the electorate at the next general election if he says no to the ECtHR on the issue of human rights. This would be the conduct of a dictator and not a democratically elected leader of the Government. The electorate did not vote to give the Tories a majority because they felt that they could not be trusted with too much public power.
Only those in support of a dictator and a dictatorship would praise the scrapping of human rights laws. A UK Bill of Rights which does not come up to the fundamental human rights in the ECHR would not satisfy the criteria for membership of the Council of Europe nor the EU nor the UN. The UK State would be declared a rogue or pariah State, and face sanctions of ever greater severity until the UK State toed the line of acceptable conduct. What Patel is advocating is that the UK State should behave like the dictatorial regime in Belarus. Patel is a poor quality spin doctor, just like Clarence Mitchell was for the McCanns. Repeating a lie many times does not make it the truth. Patel shows lack of good judgement in representing the phone hacker of Milly Dowler.
Saying no to the ECtHR will not stop prisoners getting the vote.The ECtHR does not meddle in the UK's laws. Rather, the ECtHR acts as a safeguard against Member States abuse of human rights. The 3 objectives of the Council of Europe are Human Rights, Democracy and Rule of Law. In my case the ECtHR found that the UK State has failed to achieve all 3 of these objectives. Maintaining the status quo does not safeguard British democracy. It protects a dictatorship. Idi Amin would be proud of his love child's support for a dictatorship :-)
Comment:
The issue for me is about getting convicted prisoners the vote.
So why is Priti Patel telling lies, and why is Rupert Murdoch publishing these lies?
According to administrative and constitutional law the Government governs Britain.
However, the way that some politicians suck up to Rupert Murdoch perhaps it is he who really governs Britain?
Perhaps, Priti Patel should have to explain her close links with the media to the Leveson inquiry?
Who is Priti Patel to claim that human rights laws are barmy? Before entering politics she studied economics. This hardly makes her a good judge on a legal issue. She did not become a MP on her merits, but because the Tory party wanted to create the impression that it was interested in diversity. A constituency was created and she was selected to represent it in Parliament. This kind of gerrymandering probably prevented a more competent person representing the electorate.
Patel fails to provide any evidence for her claims that the ECtHR judges are unaccountable and that Britain's criminal justice system is powerless to punish criminals, and that the State fails to protect the public. She lied, she lied, she lied
The ECtHR is right to consider whether a human rights violating State should deport someone to another human rights violating State where torture is widespread. Patel provides no evidence that Britain has been forced to release dangerous criminals on to our streets.
The ECtHR was right to reaffirm its ruling on prisoners votes.
The UK State, Executive, Parliament and Judiciary, has been found guilty of a human rights violation and added insult to injury by not providing a remedy to the victim and failing to prevent other victims suffering the same fate. The UK suggested to the ECtHR that in its view if damages for the loss of the vote should be paid then £1,000 was a fair price to pay. Had the UK done what it agreed to under our obligations in international law, then other victims would not have arisen and only £1,000 might have needed to have been paid. Now that £1,000 is likely to be multiplied by several thousand and the final bill is likely to be many millions of pounds. David Cameron has stated that he would rather pay compensation than give prisoners the vote. However, he is not rich enough for this and he is aware that the taxpayers will pick up the bill for his reckless attitude to human rights. He should do the right and honourable thing and resign. But the Bullingdon Club bully boy is too much of a coward to take responsibility for his actions.
The UK tried to bully the ECtHR to change its judgment on prisoners votes. However, the ECtHR stood up to the bullying UK State. The ECtHR is the guardian of human rights, democracy and rule of law for Europeans. What is disgraceful is Patel's and Murdoch's attack upon the ECtHR.
The issue went beyond whether prisoners should vote when the ECtHR decided the issue in the affirmative. It is not an issue of who governs Britain, this is spin by Patel and Murdoch. The ECtHR judges, unlike those in the UK, are elected. It is debateable whether Patel was democratically elected. As for the last general election, given that a large group of citizens were denied the franchise it calls into question the legitimacy of Parliament.
What is obvious is that either Patel has failed to grasp the issue or if she has then she is so corrupt that she is trying to corrupt the minds of the public. Subsequently to the UK passing a law to ban convicted prisoners from voting, this was challenged by me and the EHR ruled in my favour. The subsequent vote in the House of Commons by some MPs was in violation of European and international law, and the ECtHR was right not to give any weight to its legitimacy.
My challenge was against the UK State, and the State attempted to hide behind what it claimed public opinion stated. However, the ECtHR rejected this argument. In the consultation exercises conducted under the Labour administration, the public supported all convicted prisoners getting the vote. Once again Patel has proved to be a liar. The Administrative Court did reject my claim, but the court was subsequently found to be guilty of a human rights violation. David Cameron has misled Parliament with his physically ill claim, and breached the Ministerial Code by ignoring the ECtHR judgment in my case. It maybe that he is using Patel as a shield against his having to do the honourable thing and resign.
The elected judges of the ECtHR ruled that the blanket ban on voting was indiscriminate. The ECtHR ruled that my claim that it discriminated against convicted prisoners was not accepted under Article 14. The ECtHR wants to see those vulnerable to State abuse of power to be empowered by the franchise. This is only reasonable under the circumstances.
The Scoppola v Italy (No3) judgment merely reaffirmed the ECtHR ruling in my case. The ECtHR has been undergoing reform for over 10 years. The Interlaken, Izmir and Brighton Declarations called for reforms of certain Member States of the Council of Europe, those guilty of failing to comply with ECtHR judgments. The UK agreed the need to reform itself but has then failed to properly institute the needed reforms.
As I understand it, Kenneth Clarke warned that any reforms of the ECtHR advocated by some politicians and certain media would have to get the support of the other 46 Member States. The UK failed to achieve this at the Brighton Conference. The ECtHR does not concern itself with reasonable decisions reached by domestic courts, but it does concern itself with decisions which are not compatible with the human rights under the ECHR.
Clearly the UK failed to convince the other 46 Member States that its intentions were honourable. Scoppola also shows that the UK failed to convince the ECtHR that it should be allowed to continue its human rights abuse of convicted prisoners. As a Member State of the Council of Europe and European Union the UK State does not have the lawful power to abuse human rights. Patel shows how dishonest she is when she attempts to cloud the issue with references to the country and the people. It is clear incitement.
Patel then goes on to claim that my case leaves the Government with a simple choice. However, she then fails to state what that choice is. Unless she is referring to Hobson's Choice? A simple choice might be whether to buy a bar of milk chocolate or plain chocolate. Instead, Patel's type of choice is racist and xenophobic which is in keeping with Murdoch's The Sun policy of what constitutes as news. The ECHR is for all citizens in the UK and it is disingenous for her to state that the Government must only stand up for the interests of British people. She is not fit to judge what is in the interests of Parliament. Nor is she competent as a Cameron "A Lister" to decide what is in the interests of democracy. Patel advocates what Murdoch advocates and that is to retain the blanket ban on convicted prisoners from voting. She does not represent her constituents but instead represents Murdoch's interests. The interests of human rights, democracy and rule of law means that she and Murdoch are wrong on this issue. It is in the interests of Parliament to honour the UK's international law treaties, and comply with the ECtHR judgment in my case.
Parliament does make laws in Britain. I suspect that most people in this country are aware of this fact which appears to have escaped Patel's mind. Perhaps, she has been brainwashed by Murdoch? In any event, I doubt that David Cameron would get a vote of confidence from the electorate at the next general election if he says no to the ECtHR on the issue of human rights. This would be the conduct of a dictator and not a democratically elected leader of the Government. The electorate did not vote to give the Tories a majority because they felt that they could not be trusted with too much public power.
Only those in support of a dictator and a dictatorship would praise the scrapping of human rights laws. A UK Bill of Rights which does not come up to the fundamental human rights in the ECHR would not satisfy the criteria for membership of the Council of Europe nor the EU nor the UN. The UK State would be declared a rogue or pariah State, and face sanctions of ever greater severity until the UK State toed the line of acceptable conduct. What Patel is advocating is that the UK State should behave like the dictatorial regime in Belarus. Patel is a poor quality spin doctor, just like Clarence Mitchell was for the McCanns. Repeating a lie many times does not make it the truth. Patel shows lack of good judgement in representing the phone hacker of Milly Dowler.
Saying no to the ECtHR will not stop prisoners getting the vote.The ECtHR does not meddle in the UK's laws. Rather, the ECtHR acts as a safeguard against Member States abuse of human rights. The 3 objectives of the Council of Europe are Human Rights, Democracy and Rule of Law. In my case the ECtHR found that the UK State has failed to achieve all 3 of these objectives. Maintaining the status quo does not safeguard British democracy. It protects a dictatorship. Idi Amin would be proud of his love child's support for a dictatorship :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment