Coffee House

If we don’t want prisoners to have the vote, then we’re going to have to leave the European Court of Human Rights

13 December 2013

7:18 PM

13 December 2013

7:18 PM

David Cameron’s declaration that prisoners “damn well shouldn’t” have the right to vote is a reminder that this issue hasn’t gone away. Cameron was emphatic that the final verdict on this question should rest with the British parliament not the European Court of Human Rights.

But this is not the current situation as Cameron admitted with his line that “we need to clip [the court’s] wings”. But it is hard to see how Cameron can do that while keeping Britain under the jurisdiction of the court. The attempt to reform the court that Ken Clarke launched as Justice Secretary didn’t get very far. So, it is hard to see what other option there is beyond removing Britain from its jurisdiction.

Some suggest that we could simply not abide by the court’s ruling and pay the fine. But that would be a deeply unsatisfactory position for the country to be in. If we can’t, and I don’t think we should in this case, abide by the court’s rulings, we should withdraw from its jurisdiction.

Subscribe to The Spectator today for a quality of argument not found in any other publication. Get more Spectator for less – just £12 for 12 issues.

Show comments
  • mrsjosephinehydehartley

    But people in prison don’t have the prerogative to vote because they are being kept in a completely different position -at H.M’s pleasure. The rest of us can use our prerogative as equals to avail our democratic electoral set up ie from the same deserving position of equality.

  • disqus_9I6C4azbIA

    As a Scot who travels a lot around England it seems to me that most of the English wish to leave the E. Union but their elected representatives simply wont listen.

  • swatnan

    There is another, far better way.

  • viewcode

    If the ECHR objection is to the blanket ban (prisoners being denied the vote as a class) than a solution is a mass individual ban (each individual prisoner being denied the vote as part of their punishment). You need an Act saying “The following people are denied the vote for the duration of their sentence: Aaron Aaardvark, Alan Aaardvark…. Zeno Zyzygy, Zeus Zyzygy”, and for all future sentences to have the words “…and the franchise denied you for the duration of your sentence” appended to the end of the sentencing. Job done, fully ECHR compatible, you could get it done in 3-6 months.

  • LB

    Very simple solution. It’s the blanket ban that’s illegal. So list just one exception, and its not a blanket ban

    Here’s one law

    ” In the city of York it is legal to murder a Scotsman within the ancient city walls, but only if he is carrying a bow and arrow”

    So if someone breaks that law, they have the right to vote. Others don’t.

    Or alternatively have a referenda. If the public says no, then the EHRC can whistle. What are they going to do? Dictate to the electorate? That’s a calculation that they have to make. Do they want to rock the boat? The logical conclusion is then a referenda in the UK, and the electorate tells them to bugger off.

    You can only have laws with violence or consent.

  • Tom Tom

    Not true. There is a completely separate treaty which commits the UK to implementing the decisions of the ECHR. The Court can huff and puff but without the separate Treaty to implement automatically decisions of the Court it is meaningless and would require the Plaintiff to file in the UK Courts to have any judgment recognised

    • Denis_Cooper

      Maybe you could post a link to the separate treaty you believe exists.

      As far as I’m aware the only, but of course completely sufficient, commitment to implement the decisions of the ECHR was that made through Article 53 of the original Convention, which may be viewed here:

      That said:

      “The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the decision of the Court in any case to which they are parties”.

      The substance of that is now in Article 46(1) as I state below.

      • Tom Tom

        Arts 46 and 39.4

        • Denis_Cooper

          Well, 39.4 is about the execution of friendly settlements.

          So we agree that there isn’t a separate treaty?

  • Fergus Pickering

    Let’s do it, then.

  • Denis_Cooper

    “If we can’t … abide by the court’s rulings, we should withdraw from its jurisdiction.”

    It’s Article 46(1) of the Convention on page 25 here:

    which says:

    “The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties.”

    Clearly we should withdraw our consent to be bound by that article and therefore bound by every judgement of the Court.

  • Lady Magdalene

    If we withdraw from the ECHR (and we should) then we will also have to leave the EU.
    Since the Lisbon Treachery, it is a condition of EU membership that member nations submit to the jurisdiction of the ECHR.
    So the big girl’s blouse in No.10 won’t withdraw from the ECHR …. because it would mean leaving his beloved EU as well.
    He’d rather have foreign terrorists and immigrant criminals we can’t deport than take on the Kommissars.

    • Denis_Cooper

      There isn’t anything like that level of certainty about what would happen.

      Firstly we don’t know how the Council of Europe would react if we sent in a letter derogating from just Article 46(1) in the Convention, see above.

      The reaction could range from a quiet “We note what you say” through “You can’t derogate from just that article, so unless you withdraw your letter we’ll take it that you’re withdrawing from the whole Convention” to “If you don’t accept the jurisdiction of the Court then you’ll have to leave the Council”.

      However the treaty setting up the Council of Europe:

      preceded the Convention, so it’s not clear to me that leaving the Convention would automatically entail leaving the Council of Europe; and would they really have no concerns about the reputational damage of having a large founding member so annoyed that it ended up leaving the entire system?

      Secondly we don’t know how the governments of the other EU countries would react after we had sent in the letter derogating from Article 46(1) and the Council of Europe had reacted to that.

      There is no provision in the EU treaties for a member state to be expelled, on any grounds whatsoever; the most that could happen under the EU treaties would be activation of the provisions in Article 7 TEU for sanctions to be applied to a member state where there is held to be a serious and persistent breach of the principles laid down in Article 2 TEU:

      “The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.”

      It would be a matter for debate among the EU governments whether just withdrawing from the jurisdiction of the Strasbourg court itself constituted a serious and persistent breach of those principles and I don’t see how it could reasonably be held to do so, especially as one of the principles is “democracy”.

    • Airey Belvoir

      I have a plan for seeing off the EHCR. Give prisoners the vote, but only if they vote in a polling station- not by post. Problem solved.

  • James Allen

    God I wish ministers would just grasp the nettle (mettle?) and do it.

    Reminds me (slightly) of Rosa Parks… one act of disobediance and the whole edifice comes falling down. Please Cameron; grow a pair.

    • Fergus Pickering

      Why not grant the vote to prisoners who are sentenced to less than three months? There aren’t any? Ah well.

  • Daniel Maris

    Set up a new international court of human rights with countries that take human rights seriously but don’t want to permit human rights legislation to destroy them.

    • the viceroy’s gin

      Why do you socialists always rant for “international” whatevers?

      Particularly, international whatevers that “don’t want to permit” whatever it is you socialists don’t want to have permitted on a given day.

      It’s like a disease, or a stutter, you socialists just cannot help yourselves. Putting people under authoritarian socialist control is your answer to everything. Your answer is always more and more control and subjugation to authoritarianism.

    • Fergus Pickering

      No. Just don’t do it. What happens then?

  • Graeme S

    Its a shocking indictment of the education system in Britain….. for 2000+ years Britain did a great Job without those pesky foreigners.

    • HookesLaw

      Did we?
      We were invaded by Romans Saxons Normans. And ultimately we lost control of half of France and all of America.
      Thanks to one man we captured Canada thanks to another we captured india thanks to another we gained control of the sea and thanks to another we defeated Napoleon. 4 men created our greatness. You may think I generalise…

      In a shocking endictment of morality the last two were unfaithful to their wives. and a third was probably a repressed homosexual. Just as well the Mail on Sunday was not around then.

      • Colonel Mustard

        You are beginning to sound like telemachus. Meme for the “de-toxified” Conservative party I suppose.

      • James Allen

        What a bizarre perspective.

  • Chris

    The positive rights of the ECHR is a marxist socialist shopping list which enforce state control in our lifes. We had negative rights under our constitution which were the key to Englands brilliance.

    • HookesLaw

      There was me thiknking I’d read all the stupidity i could for one day – and then you come along.

      • viewcode
      • James Strong

        Go away and inform yourself about the differences between negative rights and positive ‘rights’.
        There are plenty of resources you could use.
        I would suggest that you start with, but don’t confine yourself to, the US Bill of Rights. All except one are negative rights; the positive one is about the rights of an accused brought to court.
        When you’ve informed yourself then come back and we can discuss it further. But at the moment the ‘stupidity’ you refer to is not coming from Chris, it’s coming from you.

    • Fergus Pickering

      How true. All human rights are negative. The rest is bollocks.

  • Austin Barry

    What an appealing image above:

    “Cameron, you’ll be sharing your cell with a Mr Bronson, who has expressed an interest in learning more about Eton’s rites of passage.”

    • Daniel Maris

      I am not sure why it is considered humourous to talk abouy M/M rape but not M/F rape. Come on, get with the programme, Austin. 🙂

    • Alexandrovich

      That’s another bloody keyboard you owe me! And Fujitsu reckoned it was coffee-proof…

  • Colonel Mustard

    Oh good – is she going to lock that stupid boy up? And is that David Morris MP lurking in the background, who ought to be charged with wasting police time.

  • HookesLaw

    The ‘declaration’ linked to is Cameron calling ‘for restrictions on powers of European court of human rights and tougher controls on freedom of movement in EU’
    Seems very sensible.
    But a lot of silly decisions revolve around our own judges and their own loony interpretations.

    • Two Bob

      Lets all worship Cameron then and his words of wisdom…. That should sort things out.

      • HookesLaw

        Why do you perpetually misrepresent Cameron. why do you twist every issue to the EU and cameron.
        Who talks about worshiping anybody.
        The only worshippers I see are those worshiping St Nigel.

        At least there is one less of thoise now. Lord Monklton has fallen out of favour because he does not go with the cult of personality.

        A joke – 6 scottish kippers resign but a London crony of St Nigel gets selected – in Scotland.
        All hail all worship…

        • Smithersjones2013

          He was responding to your references to Cameron and the EU. You really are the most ridiculous creature.

    • Smithersjones2013

      Has Dave granted you an audience yet so you can kiss the soles of his shoes from a prostrate position?

  • Andy

    A prisoner doesn’t have the right to Vote because Parliament says so. To give prisoners the vote requires Parliament to agree and if Parliament wont agree then that’s that. The government cannot disobey the Law, and that Law is made by Parliament, not some set of pretend judges in some far away place.

    • Alexsandr

      tell the supreme court that…

      • global city

        They implement and interpret the laws that have been passed by parliament.

        ECHR undertaking judicial activism (law making by creep) is profoundly undemocratic.

        It used to be a fundamental of British law, that judges and lawyers do not make laws.

  • b.edwards

    Leave the ECHR=leave the EU

    There is a Santa!

    • HookesLaw

      ECR has nothing to do with the EU.
      We helped invent it in 1950.

      As I iunderstand the ruling it says that there should be no blaket ban on all prisoners not voting.
      ‘Following the Supreme Court’s judgement, the BBC’s legal correspondent Clive Coleman said: “Critically it ruled that EU law did not provide an individual right to vote, paralleling that recognised by the ECHR. Eligibility under EU law is a matter for national parliaments.” ‘

      ‘Successive governments have wanted to maintain that position but the
      European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) said a blanket ban on prisoners
      voting was disproportionate.’

      It might help if the numpties actually based teor arguments on fact not the world as they think exists.

      • Smithersjones2013

        Being signed up to the ECHR is a pre-requisite of membership to the EU you dimwit!

        The only idiot around here who can’t get his facts right is you!

        • HookesLaw

          So is being in the Euro. We are not in it.
          The ECHR as an organisation has nothing to do with the EU and we were in it long before we were in the EU.

          • Smithersjones2013

            Clearly you haven’t read article 6 of the Lisbon Treaty

            Article 6 (2 & 3)

            2. The Union shall accede to the European
            Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Such accession shall not affect the Union’s competences as defined in the Treaties.

            3. Fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the
            European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States, shall constitute general principles of the Union’s law.


            You should really read the links provided.

            • HookesLaw

              The ECHR has nothing to do with the EU – it is quite independent.
              We helped invent the ECHR.

              The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is a 20 page bland document which is not the ECHR (court or convention)
              As the BBC point out
              ‘The charter was signed by the 15 EU members as a
              “political declaration”. This means that it may be taken into account by individual national law courts and the European Court of Justice, but it is not legally binding. ‘
              It specifically says …. ‘that the charter would “not extend the scope of application of Union law”

              The notion that we would leave the ECHR simply because we want a blanket ban rather than a selective ban on prisoner voting rights is risible – and this issue in itself has nothing to do with the EU.

              Most issues with human rights involve our own courts silly interpretations and the fact that lour own legislation pushes courts to invoke their interpretation of the ECHR.’

            • Fergus Pickering

              The Lisbon Treaty can be amended. It doesn’t matter what a piece of paper says. Or even an enormous number of sheets of paper

            • LB

              And they had a law that says freedom of movement of people goods services and capital.

              Ask Cyprus what that law is worth. It’s nothing.

          • Lady Magdalene

            We have an individually-negotiated opt-out from the Euro.

            We don’t have an individually-negotiated opt-out from the ECHR.

            If the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU, how come the Lisbon Treaty requires us to submit to its jurisdiction?

            How come the ECHR has the Star Spangled Ring to Bind them All adorning its floor

          • McClane

            We are not in the euro because, along with Denmark, we negotiated an opt-out. Sweden is not in the euro despite not having an opt-out. This is because the second stage of euro accession is voluntary which Sweden has chosen not to complete, unlike the first stage which is compulsory and which Sweden has completed.

            There is no comparison to be made between being part of the eurozone and being a party to the ECHR.

      • Alexsandr

        but we want a balnket ban, so the ECHR should respect our democratically elected parliament.

    • dalai guevara

      Come on, who cares?
      Do you c a r e? Do you f e e l the pain of prisoners having a vote which they ought not have?
      I mean seriously, what is this all about? If you intend to make a case for leaving the EHCR, then make you case. This is not a case, this is nothing, this is bollaux. They harder. In fact: yawn!

      • James Strong

        Prisoners have broken the law in a serious way.
        How about you making the case that those who break the law should also have a say in making the law?

        • Colonel Mustard

          “Prisoners have broken the law in a serious way.”

          Really? I’m not so sure about that going by what I read some people are being arrested and jailed for. People are now being arrested for telling tasteless jokes online.

          People living in countries we once considered less “free” than ours are posting comments expressing incredulity about what is happening here now that our police have become the enforcement arm of residual New Labour ideology and dangerous “law” that should have been repealed.

          Meanwhile our politicians do nothing about the undermining and destruction of our centuries old law and legal protections.

          • James Strong

            Fair point. I’ll have to reconsider the thoughts in my first sentence.
            I agree with you about ‘speech crime’.
            You probably can’t post the ‘criminal’ word that was tweeted.
            Can you please give us a steer on where to find out more about the MP’s tweet.

            • Colonel Mustard



              It is the Conservative MP’s reaction that I find incomprehensible. One might expect a Conservative to push back against the more ridiculous aspects of Political Correctness and New Labour’s bad law but this MP is actually reinforcing them.

              I am an old man but if you had told me fifty years ago that one day someone in this country would be arrested for what they had said or written, intending no violent incitement against anyone else, I might have assumed that the Soviet Union had won the Cold War and occupied Britain. In some ways I think that is exactly what has happened.

        • dalai guevara

          No, you need to make a case that the prisoner vote would justify leaving the ECHR. That’s what was implied, that’s what’s bollaux.

          • global city

            The prisoner vote debacle is just a typical example of the reasons why we need to leave the ECHR, it is not THE reason.

            It is about parliamentary supremacy and living under law making where we control the law makers.

      • Andy

        Prisoners have never, to my knowledge, had the right to vote in the UK. They were deprived of that right under the Forfeiture Act of 1870 and this was restated under the Representation of the People Act of 1983. This draws on the traditions of Ancient Greece and Rome, of ‘civil death’.

        When the ECHR was drawn up this issue was considered and it was rejected because, as was pointed out, others did not have a right to vote – members of the House of Lords; lunatics etc. The ECHR is using ‘judicial activism’ to rewrite the convention to suit themselves. UK law was entirely in accord with the convention when it was written and when the law was restated in 1983. It is so now. It is the Court which is wrong in Law and as such we cannot allow the Court to think that it can impose its bent views on Parliament.

        • ButcombeMan

          (1)A convicted person during the time that he is detained in a penal institution in pursuance of his sentence [F3or unlawfully at large when he would otherwise be so detained] is legally incapable of voting at any parliamentary or local government election.

          (2)For this purpose—

          (a)“convicted person” means any person found guilty of an offence (whether under the law of the United Kingdom or not), including a person found guilty by a [F4court of a service offence within the meaning of the Armed Forces Act 2006], but not including a person dealt with by committal or other summary process for contempt of court; and

          (b)“penal institution” means an institution to which the M1Prison Act 1952, the M2Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952 or the M3Prison Act (Northern Ireland) 1953 applies; and

          (c)a person detained for default in complying with his sentence shall not be treated as detained in pursuance of the sentence, whether or not the sentence provided for detention in the event of default, but a person detained by virtue of a conditional pardon in respect of an offence shall be treated as detained in pursuance of his sentence for the offence.

          (3)It is immaterial for the purposes of this section whether a conviction or sentence was before or after the passing of this Act.

    • global city

      The ECHR is now simply ‘unfit for purpose’ It is becoming a danger to democratic rule of law. If it isn’t scrapped or fundamentally reformed then the UK should leave it.

      It is also a barrier to basic human rights being recognised internationally.

      Nobody insisted on continuing with the League of Nations once it’s shortcomings became evident

  • Machina22

    Sounds good to me.

  • Noa

    It won’t happen, Cameron isn’t interested in doing so but will be happy to let Clegg be seen to ‘stop’ him.
    In doing so both of them satisfy their respective target audiences. Nothing gets done, as usual and more murderers and criminals who should not be here in the first place will be free to continue abusing an increasingly infuriated electorate.

    • telemachus

      A fairly typical party political post on behalf of an independence party
      (incidentally a party with no other policies)

      • Lady Magdalene

        You obviously can’t read. Our policies are available through our website.

        • Andy

          Fascists usually can’t.

        • telemachus

          I concede
          There are a few
          – Deport dangerous imams, terror suspects and wanted criminals more easily by scrapping the Human Rights Act.

          – Double prison places and create “boot camps” for young offenders.
          – Franchise out key services including hospitals and GP surgeries to companies and charities.

          – Smoking rooms in pubs.

          – Ban schools from showing Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth.

          • Nicholas chuzzlewit

            In order of idiotic appearance: 1) who, apart from the Labour party, would object to dangerous people being deported? 2) Putting criminals in prison would seem like a good idea to most sensible people but obviously not the Labour party, 3) If it helps to put patients first and achieves better outcomes for patients that sounds like a good idea although prioritising patient needs is obviously hated by the Labour Party, 4) A bad idea but nothing like as stupid as claiming you can freeze energy prices like the idiot Labour Party and 5) There is no such thing as Global Warming so nobody cares about Al Gore apart from the blithering idiots of the Labour Party – the party of lies, lying and filthy liars.

            • telemachus

              I think anyone who wishes to put his name to such a reprehensible package deserves to be deported themselves

              • Nicholas chuzzlewit

                Glad to see that you agree with me that the Labour cares nothing for patients. They certainly proved that at Mid-Staffs.

      • Colonel Mustard

        A fairly typical tagging on behalf of the Labour party (incidentally a party with only one policy – to be as negative as possible about any other party’s policies).

      • Nicholas chuzzlewit

        Tagged tripe o behalf of the Labour party = the party of lies, lying and liars.

  • Wilhelm

    What do you call a Human Rights Lawyer ?
    Answer, Karl Marx with a law degree.

  • Tim Reed

    Two for one. Good deal.

  • Alexsandr

    Leaving the court would mean leaving the Council of Europe.
    and I think being a council of Europe member is a pre-requisite of being in the EU
    so leaving the ECHR could well have repercussions.
    perhaps another article exploring the legalities is required, James?

    • vvputout

      The issue of whether EConvHR adherence is a prerequisite of EU membership is a contentious one, but best legal opinion is that it’s not except for recent and future members of the EU.

      • Smithersjones2013

        How does that work. The ECHR is recognised legally within the Lisbon Treaty (article 6) and the UK is a signatory to the Lisbon Treaty. Opinion may still persist that there is a way out of it but I find it highly implausible not least because Brussels the ECJ and the ECHR would stitch it up to ensure it went their way/

        • vvputout

          Google the paper referred to below.

          Is adherence to the European Convention on Human Rights a condition of European Union membership? – Commons Library Standard Note

          Published 12 March 2013 | Standard notes SN06577

          Authors: Vaughne Miller

          Topic: EU law and treaties, European Commission, Human rights

          • Smithersjones2013

            This paragraph caught my eye:

            Pinto-Duschinsky pointed out that as the EU itself intends to ratify the European Convention, “Were a country to denounce the convention treaty, it would still be bound by its membership of the EU to adhere to the terms of the convention in matters falling under EU jurisdiction.


            So if the government want an effective and total withdrawal from the ECHR they also have to withdraw from the EU else they will be in breach of the Lisbon Treaty the first time they vary from the EU view of human rights within their areas of EU jurisdiction.

            • HookesLaw

              Even if you take the remarks of Pinto-Duschinsky seriously – and he is not an official – he says matters falling under EU jurisdiction.
              As an example The EU have pointed out that prisoners voting rights are not an issue for the EU.

              Never mind the EU – we ratified the ECHR years before we joined the EU. Why should we want to leave it?
              We may as Cameron says want to amend it actions and the fields of activity which it has steadily encroached into.
              There are issues with the ECHR – but its nothing to do with the EU

              • Smithersjones2013

                Your obtuse refusal to accept that the ECHR is enshrined within the Lisbon Treaty even when linked Parliamentary briefing documents link them only demonstrates your refusal to believe anything that goes against your sycophantic adoration of the current regime. As such it is pointless trying to communicate with you.

                As for the reason for leaving the ECHR. That is simple. Over the years it has changed to its detriment from a UK perspective and now fairly regularly oversteps the bounds which were initially set out for it (much like the European Economic Community really). The prisoner voting ruling is an example in hand. Now the UK Government lacking the influence to reform it and the backbone to ignore it has only one option left if it is to retain judicial sovereignty and that is to withdraw from it. But likely our government lacks the spine to do that either

                • HookesLaw

                  You want to leave everything – including the present day. Next stop the planet. Stop the world you want to get off.

                  By acceeding to the ECHR – it means that the EU must subject itself to its (the ECHR’s) human rights law and external monitoring as its member states currently are.
                  ie – the ECHR protects you from abuses by the EU.

                • Smithersjones2013

                  By acceeding to the ECHR – it means that the EU must subject itself to its (the ECHR’s) human rights law

                  Thank you for stating the bleeding obvious It’s only taken you half a dozen posts to accidentally fall upon the point I’ve been trying to get through to you. That is the point I was making to you when you kept talking nonsense about there being no connection between the ECHR and the EU.

                  Now as members of the EU there is little point in the UK unilaterally leaving the ECHR if we are still bound by it through our membership of the EU. Therefore for us to truly leave the ECHR we would also have to withdraw from the EU which was my initial point and the point that Pinto-Duschinsky (who you so casually dismissed) alluded to.

                  And when it comes to institutions that are integral to the EU yes I want to leave them all. The EU, the EEA,, the ECHR and the ECJ.

                  On the other hand I do not want the UK to leave the UN, the WHO, the WTO, the Geneva Convention, NATO, FIFA, UEFA,the WCB, the WAA, the WBO, the WBA, the IOC and a multitude of other organisations I have not listed so claiming that I ‘want to leave everything’ is just another of those grossly exaggerated falsehoods that are your calling card.

                  I want this country’s Parliament and Judiciary to be sovereign. Involvement with the aforementioned European organisations compromises that. How hard is it for you to get that through your thick skull?

                • Lady Magdalene

                  If we weren’t in the bloody EU we wouldn’t need protecting from it, would we!
                  And since when was it acceptable for the people of a Sovereign nation to need protection from an undemocratic, socialist supra-national organisation? Since the Quislings in Westminster subjected us to it. And you want us to vote for them.
                  Dream on sunshine. We’re going to break the LibLabCONsensus – one party at a time.

        • HookesLaw

          You are talking about The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is a 20 page bland document which is not the ECHR (court or convention)

          • Smithersjones2013

            You can call it what you like but there is no distinction made in the briefing to Parliament:


            Keep digging Hooky…..

            • HookesLaw

              The ‘CFREU’ is not the ECHR. You are the numpty that thought it was.

              It is not a court it delivers no rulings it has no judges and people cannot appeal to it or appear before it..

              Briefings can say what they like.

              You are the stupid one who cannot read or differentiate between a 20 page document which praises motherhood and apple pie and a full blooded court and convention which we the UK brought into being in c1950

              • Smithersjones2013

                Priceless! Denouncing Parliamentary briefings now! Some people just won’t accept reality even when its shoved up there nose There really is no telling some people.

                Keep living in the 1950’s Hooky!

                • HookesLaw

                  Thats you

                • Smithersjones2013

                  Ah is that all you got left…… and I was just getting warmed up.