Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: General election/politics


Lower Club Player

Status: Offline
Posts: 148
Date:
RE: General election/politics


Bob in Spain wrote:

"I don't know if this is legal but .... "


From the notes on the bill -

"A statement under section 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 does not mean that the provisions in the Bill are incompatible with the Convention rights. The Government is satisfied that the provisions of the Bill are capable of being applied compatibly with those rights."

It is also interesting to note that the bill disapplies section 3 of the Human Rights Act.

If you are interested, here is the human rights memo for the bill -

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-03/0262/ECHR%20memo%20Illegal%20Migration%20Bill%20FINAL.pdf

 



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 38363
Date:

I dont know where this goes but much as I dont like him, I do support Gary Lineker and what he said and his right to say it

www.theguardian.com/football/live/2023/mar/10/premier-league-team-news-previews-press-conferences-and-european-reaction-live

And it is great all the other presenters and pundits are also refusing to participate now. Good for them. Silly bbc

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 19225
Date:

Latest rumour is that MoTD will be presented by Suella Braverman tomorrow with JRM and John Redwood providing the analysis.

__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 39907
Date:

Bob in Spain wrote:

Latest rumour is that MoTD will be presented by Suella Braverman tomorrow with JRM and John Redwood providing the analysis.


 Ah OK. I had it down for Clare Balding.



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Online
Posts: 53646
Date:

Steve J wrote:
Bob in Spain wrote:

"I don't know if this is legal but .... "


From the notes on the bill -

"A statement under section 19(1)(b) of the Human Rights Act 1998 does not mean that the provisions in the Bill are incompatible with the Convention rights. The Government is satisfied that the provisions of the Bill are capable of being applied compatibly with those rights."

It is also interesting to note that the bill disapplies section 3 of the Human Rights Act.

If you are interested, here is the human rights memo for the bill -

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-03/0262/ECHR%20memo%20Illegal%20Migration%20Bill%20FINAL.pdf

 


 'interesting' is one word for it.

It's rather like the ouster clauses that various governments have inserted into several important Acts which were then found to be illegal by the courts

Of course, sovereignty means that - in theory - Parliament has the right to disregard its previous acts (without actually repealing them). But as this refers to constitutional principles, it's not so straightforward....

Not saying I agree 100% with it, but The Justice Gap explains the problem quite well

 https://www.thejusticegap.com/disregarding-international-law-is-one-thing-but-disregarding-foundational-democratic-rights-is-quite-another/

The fact that this will blow up our Trade Cooperation Agreement with Europe, of course, is pretty frightening. Although the stalling mechanism the govt. is proposing is absolutely typical - try and drag it out till after the election, regardless of how much harm it does. 

And, of course, the whole problem is the Brexit implementation anyway. Under the Dublin Agreement, the UK had less than 1000 mirants per year coming across the channel. Now it's getting on for 50,000, I think. That's what happens when you decide you don't want the cooperation of your neighbours. It wasn't part of Boris' agreement because he purposely left it all to the very last minute, to increase tension and make himself seem a saviour. But that left us with no mutual equivalence agreements, no service agreements, no Dublin agreement replacement to cope with 'illegal' immigration etc etc etc. 



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 19225
Date:

indiana wrote:
Bob in Spain wrote:

Latest rumour is that MoTD will be presented by Suella Braverman tomorrow with JRM and John Redwood providing the analysis.


 Ah OK. I had it down for Clare Balding.


They've come up with a novel solution. They will show the highlights without and presentation or punditry.  I'm wondering if they are now regretting their decision.



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 17217
Date:

JonH comes home wrote:
I dont know where this goes but much as I dont like him, I do support Gary Lineker and what he said and his right to say it
 
www.theguardian.com/football/live/2023/mar/10/premier-league-team-news-previews-press-conferences-and-european-reaction-live
 
And it is great all the other presenters and pundits are also refusing to participate now. Good for them. Silly bbc
 
 I'm all for freedom of speech, but his comparison took it too far and the BBC are well within their rights to suspend him.


__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 38363
Date:

paulisi wrote:
JonH comes home wrote:
I dont know where this goes but much as I dont like him, I do support Gary Lineker and what he said and his right to say it
 
www.theguardian.com/football/live/2023/mar/10/premier-league-team-news-previews-press-conferences-and-european-reaction-live
 
And it is great all the other presenters and pundits are also refusing to participate now. Good for them. Silly bbc
 
 I'm all for freedom of speech, but his comparison took it too far and the BBC are well within their rights to suspend him.

 I guess we will just have to disagree. 



-- Edited by JonH comes home on Friday 10th of March 2023 10:03:45 PM

__________________


Futures qualifying

Status: Offline
Posts: 1744
Date:

paulisi wrote:
I'm all for freedom of speech, but his comparison took it too far and the BBC are well within their rights to suspend him.

This may be the case. But surely the BBC have now put themselves in a position where they have to suspend every presenter who has made, or makes in the future, public comment about news or current affairs; as who is to judge which comments are "too far".

They may also have to re-examine how they "employ" people: restricting employees actions outside the workplace - and not related to the workplace - is a very unpleasant thing to be doing and this is multiple times worse when the corporation chooses not to actually employ these people.

And all of this when the current head of the BBC got the job under extraordinarily dodgy circumstances, which he flatly refuses to acknowledge. I love workplaces where the boss is held to different standards than the workforce, but only when the boss's standards are more stringent.



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Online
Posts: 53646
Date:

paulisi wrote:
JonH comes home wrote:
I dont know where this goes but much as I dont like him, I do support Gary Lineker and what he said and his right to say it
 
www.theguardian.com/football/live/2023/mar/10/premier-league-team-news-previews-press-conferences-and-european-reaction-live
 
And it is great all the other presenters and pundits are also refusing to participate now. Good for them. Silly bbc
 
 I'm all for freedom of speech, but his comparison took it too far and the BBC are well within their rights to suspend him.

 Good question. 'Well within their rights'? 

I've read the social media impartiality guidelines - which one do you think Lineker has broken?

Rule number three only applies 'if your work requires you to maintin your impartiality'

It's clearly targeted at newsreaders, interviewers etc. 

I'm not sure a football presenter would qualify as someone whose actual professional job requires political impartiality. 

As to rule 2, the catch all clause, it will be difficult to argue it's brought the BBC into disrepute unless you can can show the majority of the public disagree with him (i.e. disrepute is in the public perception, not the BBC's or government's perception). 

Even the general rules are very broadly (and badly) drafted

 

Now, personally, I don't think Gary should liken it to Nazi Germany - I think it's a 'cheap' analogy.

But I'm hard pushed to see where it breaks the rules precisely and, moreover, whether it should break any rules - he's a football guy, for heaven's sake, posting in his personal capacity. The fact that people follow him is obvious. But it's not on the BBC dollar, he's not a political bod on BBC. If he were making some big controversial comment about football that's one thing but I don't see why he can't state his political views.  



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 39907
Date:

indiana wrote:

The Lineker decision was not surprising.

Whatever folk may think about what he said, it did look like overstepping the mark.


 It may still be not surprising, which one can argue is a great pity in itself

I think though folk above have made a very convincing case that it is wrong and doesn't  break BBC rules given his role in the BBC and where he aired his opinion. His analogy remains questionable /"cheap" but I have come round to it being the BBC bosses who are the ones overstepping the mark.



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 38363
Date:

indiana wrote:
indiana wrote:

The Lineker decision was not surprising.

Whatever folk may think about what he said, it did look like overstepping the mark.


 It may still be not surprising, which one can argue is a great pity in itself

I think though folk above have made a very convincing case that it is wrong and doesn't  break BBC rules given his role in the BBC and where he aired his opinion. His analogy remains questionable /"cheap" but I have come round to it being the BBC bosses who are the ones overstepping the mark.


 Good chap! 

id like for folks to call them out further , the Rwanda exporting policy stinks IMO, but lets leave it there. 



__________________


Lower Club Player

Status: Offline
Posts: 148
Date:

Coup Droit wrote:

It's rather like the ouster clauses that various governments have inserted into several important Acts which were then found to be illegal by the courts

Of course, sovereignty means that - in theory - Parliament has the right to disregard its previous acts (without actually repealing them). But as this refers to constitutional principles, it's not so straightforward....

And, of course, the whole problem is the Brexit implementation anyway. Under the Dublin Agreement, the UK had less than 1000 mirants per year coming across the channel.  


Doesn't disapplying article 3 of the HRA stop the UK courts doing that to this bill? The bill appears to be written anticipating intervention by the ECtHR. I can guess what will happen after such an intervention.

The Supreme Court disagree with you. See the recent ruling on the Northern Ireland Protocol and the Act of Union.

The Dublin Agreement was almost useless.



__________________


Lower Club Player

Status: Offline
Posts: 148
Date:

Coup Droit wrote:
If he were making some big controversial comment about football that's one thing but I don't see why he can't state his political views.  

I have no problem with Lineker stating his political views. I do have problems with the way that his ridiculous salary is funded and the general attitude of the left to free speech issues.

It will be amusing if the tonight's presenter and pundit free MOTD gets more viewers than usual .



__________________


Tennis legend

Status: Online
Posts: 53646
Date:

Well, I find it amusing the the 'Boris loan arranged by BBC chairman' scandal story of a month ago had pretty much died a bit of a death.

Despite MPs saying the BBC Chairman had effectively lied, withheld info, not acted impartially etc

And the BBC must have breathed a huge sigh of relief (well, the Chairman in particular must have done)

And now, with the Lineker 'scandal', it's all risen up again, with obviously the left saying 'how can you accuse Lineker of impartialiaty when your very own Chairman is arranging loans for the PM?'

Which is karma, in a way

Like you, I hate the idea of trying to silence all dissent, whichever side.....

__________________
«First  <  119 20 21 22 2342  >  Last»  | Page of 42  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard