[Abernathy]

That Jack Dart chap on the Fleecebook doesn't half write some sound stuff :

Today marks seventy-five years since the signing of the European Convention on Human Rights, one of the greatest British-led achievements in modern history. It was written after a war that exposed the dangers of unchecked power and designed to make sure no government could ever again act without restraint. It grew from British law and values, not from Brussels or Strasbourg, but from London and the idea that power must serve the people, not rule them.
The Convention has protected those principles time and again. It upheld a Christian woman’s right to wear a cross at work after British Airways banned it, confirming that no employer should dictate how someone quietly expresses their faith. It protected journalists who refused to reveal confidential sources, safeguarding the freedom of the press and the public’s right to know the truth. It helped end the criminalisation of gay men in Northern Ireland, forcing a government that looked the other way to recognise that love and dignity are not privileges. It compelled reform when children were failed by social services, ensuring the state faced its duty to protect them. It forced transparency when surveillance laws were written to watch the public instead of serving it. Every ruling strengthened rights that already belonged to the British people.
Those who now attack the Convention claim it stops Britain from removing migrants. That claim is false. Immigration cases make up only a tiny part of its work. The ECHR has nothing to do with obstructing justice and everything to do with ensuring that justice applies equally to all. The people trying to dismantle it are not defending Britain. They are defending the right of governments to act without being held to account.
Seventy-five years on, the ECHR remains a statement of what Britain once stood for, a statement of fairness, liberty, and the rule of law. It is the thread that ties government power to public duty. To abandon it would be to forget the lessons that shaped it and to turn away from the values that once made Britain a standard-bearer for human rights.
We must reject, wholeheartedly, any and all calls to leave it.

[mattomac]

As I said to my dad, why would anyone willfully say "yes" lets give more power especially around human rights to the government. You have to be incredibly stupid. But it seems any reason is churned out to argue against it, like these recent issues with prisoner releases. The first one that got reported was being deported so why leaving the ECHR would change that is anyone's guess.

Then again Chris Philp is a daft racist like his mate Jenrick, oh and incredibly thick,

[Andy McDandy]

I was recently reading "The Great Train Robbery" by Michael Crichton, and in it he makes an interesting point - that as long as crime stats have been collected, it's white collar crime that steals the most and gets off the lightest. He also says that "breaking the law" as an euphemism was coined in the Victorian era, to differentiate itself from the rather blunter concept of crime. A crime was something the lower orders did, and it was as much a moral offence as a material one. On the other hand, breaking the law implied just a contravention of the rules. This trend persists today. Point being, the RefUkers always think they'll be on the winning side come the revolution, and only the unworthy will be purged.