Newbury Today Forum [Powered by Invision Power Board]

Posted by: GMR Oct 5 2010, 08:29 PM

Somebody put a thread up about Blair's autobiography when it came out (it might have even been me) so I said when I've read it I'll review it. So here goes;

A Journey by Tony Blair. An autobiography.

Let me state at the outset that I am no fan of Blair's: he turned this country into an Orwellian Big brother society, cocked up education, over spent (partly contributing to the recession) and law and order went out of control (one of the reasons of this was him bringing in the European Human Rights legislation that empowered the criminal and did nothing for the good citizen). He was also too pro European (luckily he was restrained). The good points was reforming Old labour and removing clause 4. The Irish problem and I agreed with him over Iraq (even though I had reservations of Americas handling of the aftermath).

When I first heard that he was having an autobiography out I thought 'I won't be getting it.' I'd rather wait until the historians brought their books out. But alas, I acquiesced and I am glad I did. It was a very interesting read. His style was unique; very blokish, like he is having a chat with you. He goes backwards and forward. Not like normal political biographies or autobiographies.

A quick synopsis

The book is his time in politics, starting with becoming the leader of the Labour party through to his resignation and thoughts on his successor. His reasoning why he changed the labour party was very sound, and with hindsight very right. There was no place in modern society for 'Old Labour'.

Blair records his thoughts about his often difficult relationship with his Chancellor (Gordon Brown), whom he depicts as a "strange guy" who had "zero" emotional intelligence, and says of himself and Brown as "like a couple who loved each other, arguing over whose career should come first". In the book he says that he had promised Brown in 2003 he would resign before the next general election, but later changed his mind. But the reasons for this were Brown's unhelpfulness and obstreperous and arrogant ways. He accuses Gordon of blackmail, claiming that he threatened to call for a Labour Party inquiry into the cash for honours affair during an argument over pension policy, and goes on to say that Tony was behind the decision to hand control of interest rates to the Bank of England rather than Brown. He also blames Brown on Labour's defeat this year. If he hadn't abandoned 'new labour's' policies he would have won the election. On a good note; just, he says that Brown was a very good chancellor and a 'committed public servant.'

The Iraq affair will interest most peoples, but as I said, above I agreed on the invasion. Saddam had to be overthrown. Blair presenting evidence that Saddam Hussein had not abandoned the strategy of WMD, merely made a tactical decision to play games with the west. Blair says that he would make the same choice again if he had came across the same problems with Iran. In other words if that country develops nuclear weapons it will change the balance of power of the Middle East to the region's detriment and the west must go in.

He talks quite a bit about the royal family, Diana.

Also in the book Tony Blair claims that he had premonition that his predecessor, John Smith, would die less than a month before he did (I would imagine God played a part in this). Blair then goes on to say that he believed or knew that he would be the one to succeed John Smith as Labour leader, and not Gordon Brown, who was favourite at the time.

He talks about his guilt over decisions he made concerning Peter Mandelson, such as forcing Mandy to resign from Government.

The last chapter of the book is a assessment of Labour Party policy and discusses the party's future, with Blair warning the future labour leader – now known as Ed Milliband that to remain electable then labour should continue with the policies of New Labour and not return to the left-wing policies of the past. I wonder what he thinks of Red Ed?

Over all a very good book. Better than I expected.

I've already got Petery Mandelson/s book to read and another on Blair, Mandelson and Brown.

Posted by: Darren Oct 5 2010, 08:44 PM

Sorry, but the bold italics makes that difficult to read, so I've not bothered.

Posted by: GMR Oct 5 2010, 08:55 PM

QUOTE (Darren @ Oct 5 2010, 09:44 PM)

Sorry, but the bold italics makes that difficult to read, so I've not bothered.

Is that better?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 5 2010, 09:02 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Oct 5 2010, 09:29 PM)

one of the reasons of this was him bringing in the European Human Rights legislation that empowered the criminal and did nothing for the good citizen

I suspect it's a thread of it's own really, but do you know what the Convention Rights are?

Posted by: GMR Oct 5 2010, 09:10 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Oct 5 2010, 10:02 PM)

I suspect it's a thread of it's own really, but do you know what the Convention Rights are?

The European Convention on Human Rights is supposed to be an international treaty to protect human rights and basic independence in Europe. The bill was drafted in 1950 by the Council of Europe. That convention entered into force in 1953.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 5 2010, 09:26 PM

In other words: were were already 'payed up members'. 1998 meant it could be read in the UK rather than taking it to Europe.

Posted by: GMR Oct 5 2010, 09:31 PM

QUOTE (Iommi @ Oct 5 2010, 10:26 PM)

On other words, were were already 'payed up members'. 1998 meant it could be read in the UK rather than taking it to Europe.

You could say that. However, the point was that is benefited the criminal classes the most. Granted it did/ does help certain groups (but it is argued that those groups would have already been helped anyway). You often now hear the mantra "my Human Rights" when the criminal classes are challenged or arrested. Sadly the same doesn't apply to the victims.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 5 2010, 10:11 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Oct 5 2010, 10:10 PM)

The European Convention on Human Rights is supposed to be an international treaty to protect human rights and basic independence in Europe. The bill was drafted in 1950 by the Council of Europe. That convention entered into force in 1953.

No, I mean specifically which of the Convention Rights empowed the criminal, and can't you think of any that have done anything for the good citizen?

Posted by: Iommi Oct 5 2010, 11:55 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Oct 5 2010, 10:31 PM)

You could say that. However, the point was that is benefited the criminal classes the most. Granted it did/ does help certain groups (but it is argued that those groups would have already been helped anyway). You often now hear the mantra "my Human Rights" when the criminal classes are challenged or arrested. Sadly the same doesn't apply to the victims.

I understand what you are trying to say, but I find your rhetoric a little simplistic. The truth is, criminals have equal rights in law, regardless of their behaviour. The act prevents certain treatment of its constituents from the state. The act signed in 1998 was logical because we had the same rights anyway. The 1998 act just meant that UK courts could sit in judgement instead of Strasbourg. However; one can still appeal to Strasbourg in the right circumstances.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 6 2010, 12:10 AM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Oct 5 2010, 11:11 PM)

No, I mean specifically which of the Convention Rights empowed the criminal, and can't you think of any that have done anything for the good citizen?

Article 8 - the right to a family life? A number of violent criminals have survived deportation attempts by the Government because of it.

Posted by: Darren Oct 6 2010, 12:45 AM

Back to the subject....

It's very easy to sit in judgement of someone who has done a job that in the last 50 years only 10 others have had the privilege (or pain) of doing. I have no real frame of reference with which to judge whether he was a good or bad Prime Minister.

Everyone who has sat in that position has to make really difficult decisions, knowing full well that no matter what they do, it will be wrong for some.

Go to war knowing that there will be a cost in life for those who we send into harms way.
Not go to war and let a thoroughly evil man continue to oppress the majority of the population and threaten his neighbours.

I wonder what Chamberlain and Churchill would have said to him?

It's easy to vilify someone from your armchair, but if you were in that position, what would you have done?

Posted by: On the edge Oct 6 2010, 06:48 AM

GMRs summary seems to confirm that Tony Blair was exactly what he appeared. Nothing wrong with that and it fits our now 'presidential' style of politics. Taking away how and what actually happened - Blair was the most successful labour leader since the party started. He won three elections on the trot, with good majorities. Doubtless and as the book suggests that was because his style was in tune with the party and the people at the same time. Doesn't matter how shallow the personality or the commitment to the cause - it worked. Yes, pure marketing, but for the party faithful - in power for a long time. In my view, Tony Blair is the Stanley Baldwin of modern politics - party (or simply the need to keep it in power) before people. I also suspect that history will be much kinder to Gordon Brown. After all he nearly did it and after three Labour wins - didn't matter who he was - the odds were stacked heavily against. A bit like Alex Douglas Home - who everyone thought an abject failure - really? again against all the odds, nearly there in 1964. All said and done, Gordon is probably the more rounded and creditable character. A steadfast and reliable person - to whom the cause is more important. Remember, I'm talking about the person not the policies. I hope the superficial views don't stick and that GB doesn't end up like Philip Snowden in the 30's - besmerched simply because he was the abrasive Dennis Healey of the day but without the theatrical personality to match. So what would Churchill have said - keep on writing - history belongs to those who write the record, as WSC did and well knew! Will I read the book? No; GMR has confirmed = you can read Tony easily anyway!.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 6 2010, 08:43 AM

GMRs summary seems to confirm that Tony Blair was exactly what he appeared. Nothing wrong with that and it fits our now 'presidential' style of politics

hardly surprising from a man who lived in a political age of spin.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 6 2010, 09:09 AM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Oct 6 2010, 07:48 AM)

I also suspect that history will be much kinder to Gordon Brown. After all he nearly did it and after three Labour wins - didn't matter who he was - the odds were stacked heavily against.

I'm not sure history will be that kind. His greatest ability was to spread the tax burden so broad, no one really worried too much about it. What we already know though is he was up to his neck in spin as any other new Labour minister, if not even worse. He was devisive and self centered - he 'needed' to be Priminister and that was partly his downfall; so much so he bottled the election that would have given him the mandate he needed to maintain his premiership. GB was one of the people that is a great general, but a poor leader.

As for TB, is it true that fewer people voted for him than John Major in his last election?

Posted by: GMR Oct 6 2010, 04:34 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Oct 5 2010, 11:11 PM)

No, I mean specifically which of the Convention Rights empowed the criminal, and can't you think of any that have done anything for the good citizen?

Many criminals use the 'Human Rights legislation' to give them a helping hand. As for the 'good citizen'; granted there are some who have, no doubt, benefited. But they are a very small minority. Those that are political agitators it has helped.

A recent report (in the Times last year) stated that the criminal classes have benefited more from the HRL than the ordinary citizen.

Posted by: GMR Oct 6 2010, 04:36 PM

QUOTE (Iommi @ Oct 6 2010, 12:55 AM)

I understand what you are trying to say, but I find your rhetoric a little simplistic. The truth is, criminals have equal rights in law, regardless of their behaviour. The act prevents certain treatment of its constituents from the state. The act signed in 1998 was logical because we had the same rights anyway. The 1998 act just meant that UK courts could sit in judgement instead of Luxembourg. However; one can still appeal to Luxembourg in the right circumstances.

Yes, it was 'simplistic' but then again I was thinking of you at the time.

I know that criminals have equal rights... but in some cases more equal than some.

Posted by: GMR Oct 6 2010, 04:37 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Oct 6 2010, 07:48 AM)

GMRs summary seems to confirm that Tony Blair was exactly what he appeared. Nothing wrong with that and it fits our now 'presidential' style of politics. Taking away how and what actually happened - Blair was the most successful labour leader since the party started. He won three elections on the trot, with good majorities. Doubtless and as the book suggests that was because his style was in tune with the party and the people at the same time. Doesn't matter how shallow the personality or the commitment to the cause - it worked. Yes, pure marketing, but for the party faithful - in power for a long time. In my view, Tony Blair is the Stanley Baldwin of modern politics - party (or simply the need to keep it in power) before people. I also suspect that history will be much kinder to Gordon Brown. After all he nearly did it and after three Labour wins - didn't matter who he was - the odds were stacked heavily against. A bit like Alex Douglas Home - who everyone thought an abject failure - really? again against all the odds, nearly there in 1964. All said and done, Gordon is probably the more rounded and creditable character. A steadfast and reliable person - to whom the cause is more important. Remember, I'm talking about the person not the policies. I hope the superficial views don't stick and that GB doesn't end up like Philip Snowden in the 30's - besmerched simply because he was the abrasive Dennis Healey of the day but without the theatrical personality to match. So what would Churchill have said - keep on writing - history belongs to those who write the record, as WSC did and well knew! Will I read the book? No; GMR has confirmed = you can read Tony easily anyway!.

That about sums it up.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 6 2010, 05:09 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Oct 6 2010, 05:34 PM)

Many criminals use the 'Human Rights legislation' to give them a helping hand. As for the 'good citizen'; granted there are some who have, no doubt, benefited. But they are a very small minority.

But isn't this true of the criminals as well? Viz, criminals that have exploited the HRA are a small minority.

Posted by: GMR Oct 6 2010, 05:13 PM

QUOTE (Iommi @ Oct 6 2010, 06:09 PM)

But isn't this true of the criminals as well? Viz, criminals that have exploited the HRA are a small minority.

Well; I can only go by what I've read in papers like the Guardian, Times, Telegraph etc and programmes like Newsnight; and that doesn't seem to be the case.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 6 2010, 05:21 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Oct 6 2010, 06:13 PM)

Well; I can only go by what I've read in papers like the Guardian, Times, Telegraph etc and programmes like Newsnight; and that doesn't seem to be the case.

I have seen and read the same thing and I don't have the same opinion.

Returning, to your opening post...

QUOTE (GMR @ Oct 5 2010, 09:29 PM)

law and order went out of control (one of the reasons of this was him bringing in the European Human Rights legislation that empowered the criminal and did nothing for the good citizen).

'Simplistic rhetoric' was in reference to your idea that one of the reasons law and order went out of control was because TB signed the 1998 act. If anything, law and order was already out of control if we are to believe the afore mentioned media outlets.

Posted by: GMR Oct 6 2010, 06:59 PM

QUOTE (Iommi @ Oct 6 2010, 06:21 PM)

I have seen and read the same thing and I don't have the same opinion.

Then we shall agree to disagree.

QUOTE

'Simplistic rhetoric' was in reference to your idea that one of the reasons law and order went out of control was because TB signed the 1998 act. If anything, law and order was already out of control if we are to believe the afore mentioned media outlets.

It always helps to explain ones self otherwise it is open to interpretation.

I agree totally with you when you say that Law and order was already out of control before the signing of the act. All the act did was add to the problems of this country; problems that we didn't want added to.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 6 2010, 07:14 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Oct 6 2010, 05:34 PM)

Many criminals use the 'Human Rights legislation' to give them a helping hand. As for the 'good citizen'; granted there are some who have, no doubt, benefited. But they are a very small minority. Those that are political agitators it has helped.

A recent report (in the Times last year) stated that the criminal classes have benefited more from the HRL than the ordinary citizen.

Again, can you be specific? I am aware that the Human Rights Act is vilified by the right-wing press in the terms your have regurgitated, but they have an agenda in undermining it. I asked you specifically which of the Convention Rights you have a problem with because I don't see how many of them can be in the slightest contentious and to be honest it's not obvious from your answer that you know what you're objecting to. The Article 10 and 11 rights I feel are particularly important in a free and democratic society and it's conceivable that I will at some time rely on them to avoid persecution by the state, but then I am a political agitator, though how that makes me any less a good citizen than yourself I'd be interested to hear.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 6 2010, 07:18 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Oct 6 2010, 07:59 PM)

I agree totally with you when you say that Law and order was already out of control before the signing of the act.

That wasn't quite my opinion, but never mind.

QUOTE (GMR @ Oct 6 2010, 07:59 PM)

All the act did was add to the problems of this country; problems that we didn't want added to.

"It always helps to explain ones self otherwise it is open to interpretation."

In my view, signing the 1998 act made bog all difference to law and order because we were bound by the ECHR any way.

Posted by: GMR Oct 6 2010, 07:38 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Oct 6 2010, 08:14 PM)

I am aware that the Human Rights Act is vilified by the right-wing press in the terms your have regurgitated, but they have an agenda in undermining it.

Of course they do, unlike the left who don't have any agenda other than serve the community in a pure ans sterile manner. Everybody has an agenda.

The problem I have, and many others, is criminals using the Human Rights act to help them get out of trouble.

Posted by: GMR Oct 6 2010, 07:40 PM

QUOTE (Iommi @ Oct 6 2010, 08:18 PM)

That wasn't quite my opinion, but never mind.

Well, explain yourself better man.

QUOTE

"It always helps to explain ones self otherwise it is open to interpretation."

In my view, signing the 1998 act made bog all difference to law and order because we were bound by the ECHR any way.

I disagree. It added to our problems.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 6 2010, 08:53 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Oct 6 2010, 08:38 PM)

Of course they do, unlike the left who don't have any agenda other than serve the community in a pure ans sterile manner. Everybody has an agenda.

The problem I have, and many others, is criminals using the Human Rights act to help them get out of trouble.

Yes, but specifically which criminals have used the HRA, and specifically which Articles do you suppose they have used?

Posted by: GMR Oct 6 2010, 09:05 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Oct 6 2010, 09:53 PM)

Yes, but specifically which criminals have used the HRA, and specifically which Articles do you suppose they have used?

For Christ sake I don't take notes. I can only go by what I've been told (by the police), what I've read and what was reported on such programmes like Newsnight. In fact that is were we all get our information from. Are you saying you read differently?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 6 2010, 09:46 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Oct 6 2010, 10:05 PM)

For Christ sake I don't take notes. I can only go by what I've been told (by the police), what I've read and what was reported on such programmes like Newsnight. In fact that is were we all get our information from. Are you saying you read differently?

You kicked off the book review with a diatribe on the Human Rights Act, but you don't know what the Convention Rights are, you don't know who is obliged by the act to respect those rights, and you don't have an example of a criminal who has used the HRA to escape justice. I don't doubt that, were the government to repeal the Act, the decision would be warmly applauded, and I think that would set back freedom and democracy. It's not impossible that I read all that somewhere.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 6 2010, 10:03 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Oct 6 2010, 10:05 PM)

For Christ sake I don't take notes. I can only go by what I've been told (by the police), what I've read and what was reported on such programmes like Newsnight. In fact that is were we all get our information from. Are you saying you read differently?

Given your occasional 'inability' (possibly deliberate) to interpret correctly some of my posts, including one in this thread, I have some doubt that you have understood your sources properly.

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Oct 6 2010, 10:46 PM)

I don't doubt that, were the government to repeal the Act, the decision would be warmly applauded, and I think that would set back freedom and democracy. It's not impossible that I read all that somewhere.

I can't see it would make any difference as we are bound by the ECHR anyway (I think we'd have to 'leave Europe' to be able to abandon the HRA (even then; what about the UDHR?); a point GMR is yet to acknowledge.

I assert that organisations are sometimes misinterpreting the act, or use the HRA as a smoke-screen for other blunders. This doesn't take into account inaccurate reporting from the 'usual suspects', and others of course. All this being said, I can see that there will always be opportunities for miscreants to exploit acts like this, but I would like to think that it would be the exception to the rule and is in the minority.

I think what Blair did in 1998 was sensible, given the circumstances.

Here is a site that seems to throw some light on the subject.
http://frontline.cjsonline.gov.uk/guidance/human-rights

This being particularly interesting.
http://frontline.cjsonline.gov.uk/_includes/downloads/guidance/human-rights/Index-quick-cases-Feb2008.doc

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 7 2010, 10:50 AM

QUOTE (Iommi @ Oct 6 2010, 11:03 PM)

Given your occasional 'inability' (possibly deliberately) to interpret correctly some of my posts, including one in this thread, I some doubt that you have understood your sources properly.

I can't see it would make any difference as we are bound by the ECHR anyway (I think we'd have to 'leave Europe' to be able to abandon the HRA (even then; what about the UDHR?); a point GMR is yet to acknowledge.

I assert that organisations misinterpreting the act, or use the HRA as a smoke-screen for other blunders. This doesn't take into account inaccurate reporting from the 'usual suspects', and others, of course.

I think what Blair did in 1998 was sensible, given the circumstances.

Here is a site that seems to throw some light on the subject.
http://frontline.cjsonline.gov.uk/guidance/human-rights

This being particularly interesting.
http://frontline.cjsonline.gov.uk/_includes/downloads/guidance/human-rights/Index-quick-cases-Feb2008.doc

Thanks for those links. The last one is particularly interesting because it's difficult to say how much of that isn't what you'd expect in a civilised society.

The HRA hasn't made it that much easier for the average Schmo to secure her rights because bringing an action in the High Court is not that much easier than bringing an action in Strasbourg. In practical terms you're stuffed unless you have the support of a special interest group. It has made an impact because of course there are some powerful special interest groups, though that is also the weakness of the HRA because it's become a byword of derision for those ideologically opposed to those groups. The HRA also hasn't done so much to allign UK legislation with the convention because the ECHR-route was always available for that.

The great benefit that I see in the HRA is that it can be used directly in the lower courts and tribunals as a defence, and it can be used in the complaints procedures of public authorities and their ombudsmen.

An example from my own experience: Newbury Town Council are very cross that I have criticised their efficiency by marching up and down outside the town hall with a placard saying

Newbury
TOWN COUNCIL
Allotments
1% Inspiration
99% Perspiration
£100k Administration

Before the HRA they could simply have evicted me from my allotment, but Article 10 guarantees my right to protest and I can argue in a possession hearing at the County Court that evicting me as punishment for making a legitimate protest would be a violation of my right to Freedom of Expression.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 7 2010, 11:19 AM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Oct 7 2010, 11:50 AM)

Thanks for those links. The last one is particularly interesting because it's difficult to say how much of that isn't what you'd expect in a civilised society.

How I interpret the second link, is that it goes some-way to debunk some myths about the HRA being a villain's charter.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 7 2010, 11:25 AM

QUOTE (Iommi @ Oct 7 2010, 12:19 PM)

How I interpret the second link, is that it goes some-way to debunk some myths about the HRA being a villain's charter.

Exactly so.

Posted by: GMR Oct 7 2010, 04:30 PM

QUOTE (Iommi @ Oct 6 2010, 11:03 PM)

Given your occasional 'inability' (possibly deliberate) to interpret correctly some of my posts, including one in this thread, I have some doubt that you have understood your sources properly.

Seeing as your only objective is to provoke, rather than debate (I'll put it down to your abrasive manner) and pass on this.

Posted by: GMR Oct 7 2010, 04:34 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Oct 6 2010, 10:46 PM)

You kicked off the book review with a diatribe on the Human Rights Act, but you don't know what the Convention Rights are, you don't know who is obliged by the act to respect those rights, and you don't have an example of a criminal who has used the HRA to escape justice. I don't doubt that, were the government to repeal the Act, the decision would be warmly applauded, and I think that would set back freedom and democracy. It's not impossible that I read all that somewhere.

Actually I do. But you seem very pro European - thus blinkered - but my comments are not the only ones. I think you should read more widely outside of the European propaganda.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 7 2010, 04:47 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Oct 7 2010, 05:30 PM)

Seeing as your only objective is to provoke, rather than debate (I'll put it down to your abrasive manner) and pass on this.

Chicken.

I have argued my point of view. It is you that is incapable of putting together a rational argument for your point of view. It would seem also, that I am not the only one to think so.

And as for provocative, your first reply to me in this thread was...

QUOTE (GMR @ Oct 6 2010, 05:36 PM)

Yes, it was 'simplistic' but then again I was thinking of you at the time.

Come up with crap like this and you will get some.

Posted by: GMR Oct 7 2010, 05:17 PM

QUOTE (Iommi @ Oct 7 2010, 05:47 PM)

Chicken.

I have argued my point of view. It is you that is incapable of putting together a rational argument for your point of view. It would seem also, that I am not the only one to think so.

If you want an intelligent conversation then try engaging. It seems you and Simon only understand debate through personal abuse. We should be debating the subject, not the person.

QUOTE

And as for provocative, your first reply to me in this thread was...

That reply was because of your wish to make it personal, rather than debate the subject matter; as I said above.

When people start to get personal you then know they've got nothing to offer other than trying to belittle; i.e. they've got no proper arguments.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 7 2010, 05:29 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Oct 7 2010, 06:17 PM)

If you want an intelligent conversation then try engaging. It seems you and Simon only understand debate through personal abuse. We should be debating the subject, not the person.

I've tried that but you have no answer. I said that the 1998 act didn't help increase criminal behaviour. I said that we were already bound by the same rules under the ECHR anyway.

QUOTE (GMR @ Oct 7 2010, 06:17 PM)

That reply was because of your wish to make it personal, rather than debate the subject matter; as I said above.

Where was it personal? I said your rhetoric (the undue use of exaggeration) was a little simplistic (making unrealistically simple judgements). I still stand by it; it was nothing personal.

You said: 'law and order went out of control (one of the reasons of this was him bringing in the European Human Rights legislation...)'.

I think this is demonstrably an exaggeration and over simplified.

QUOTE (GMR @ Oct 7 2010, 06:17 PM)

When people start to get personal you then know they've got nothing to offer other than trying to belittle; i.e. they've got no proper arguments.

Is this why you got personal and implied I am simple?

Posted by: Sarah Oct 7 2010, 05:41 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Oct 7 2010, 06:17 PM)

When people start to get personal you then know they've got nothing to offer other than trying to belittle; i.e. they've got no proper arguments.

I read the replies you posted when you first came online, before you had second thoughts and edited them. I think the above applies more to you than either Simon or Iommi.

Posted by: GMR Oct 7 2010, 06:55 PM

QUOTE (Iommi @ Oct 7 2010, 06:29 PM)

I've tried that but you have no answer. I said that the 1998 act didn't help increase criminal behaviour. I said that we were already bound by the same rules under the ECHR anyway.

We all go by what we read. And what I've read disagrees with your comments. The 1998 act, did, according to some sources I've read, contribute to criminals using the European Human Rights act.

QUOTE

Where was it personal? I said your rhetoric (the undue use of exaggeration) was a little simplistic (making unrealistically simple judgements). I still stand by it; it was nothing personal.

You've now added and change it; but originally that wasn't how I read it.

QUOTE

You said: 'law and order went out of control (one of the reasons of this was him bringing in the European Human Rights legislation...)'.

Personally neither of us know; however, according to what I've read, and as Newsnight reported it awhile back there is a different view to this.

QUOTE

Is this why you got personal and implied I am simple?

I said what I said because of your comments.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 7 2010, 07:25 PM

QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Oct 7 2010, 11:50 AM)

Thanks for those links. The last one is particularly interesting because it's difficult to say how much of that isn't what you'd expect in a civilised society.

The HRA hasn't made it that much easier for the average Schmo to secure her rights because bringing an action in the High Court is not that much easier than bringing an action in Strasbourg. In practical terms you're stuffed unless you have the support of a special interest group. It has made an impact because of course there are some powerful special interest groups, though that is also the weakness of the HRA because it's become a byword of derision for those ideologically opposed to those groups. The HRA also hasn't done so much to allign UK legislation with the convention because the ECHR-route was always available for that.

The great benefit that I see in the HRA is that it can be used directly in the lower courts and tribunals as a defence, and it can be used in the complaints procedures of public authorities and their ombudsmen.

An example from my own experience: Newbury Town Council are very cross that I have criticised their efficiency by marching up and down outside the town hall with a placard saying

Newbury
TOWN COUNCIL
Allotments
1% Inspiration
99% Perspiration
£100k Administration

Before the HRA they could simply have evicted me from my allotment, but Article 10 guarantees my right to protest and I can argue in a possession hearing at the County Court that evicting me as punishment for making a legitimate protest would be a violation of my right to Freedom of Expression.

You had freedom of speech and therefore protest under the English constitution and still have. Whilst the trend these days is to try and chip away at it, we have some fundamental freedoms enshrined in that and our common law. Ironically, something they never had on the Continent. The independence of our Courts is one of them and directly related, some many years ago, I saw a County Court Registrar dispense real justice. A neighbouring local authority were trying to evict one of their tenants under a very unfair clause in the Council's tenancy agreement. Indeed, trying to do it just before the law changed and abolished these unfair clauses. The Registrar heard both sides and gave his jdecision. The Council had every right to evict under the terms of the agreement but the tenant was being unjustly treated. So he gave judgment to the Council - to take effect one day after the law changed. That's justice.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 7 2010, 07:43 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Oct 7 2010, 07:55 PM)

We all go by what we read. And what I've read disagrees with your comments. The 1998 act, did, according to some sources I've read, contribute to criminals using the European Human Rights act.

Yes, but that isn't what you said originally. You said that due to TB signing the 1998 act, crime was allowed to go out of control. That is not the same as saying that criminals have been able to exploit the HRA.

QUOTE (GMR @ Oct 7 2010, 07:55 PM)

You've now added and change it; but originally that wasn't how I read it.

I've changed nothing, the statement is materially the same.

QUOTE (GMR @ Oct 7 2010, 07:55 PM)

Personally neither of us know; however, according to what I've read, and as Newsnight reported it awhile back there is a different view to this.

Speak for your self. I was alive in 1998 and onwards and I didn't see anything to say that crime had gone out of control. It tends to run in cycles, but this is not due to the act signed in 1998 as the act is still in force and according to the BCS overall crime is down (Radio 4 tonight regards ASB).

QUOTE (GMR @ Oct 7 2010, 07:55 PM)

I said what I said because of your comments.

So either your argument has floundered (because you got personal), or your statement about getting personal is a display of losing the argument is wrong.

Posted by: GMR Oct 7 2010, 07:53 PM

QUOTE (Iommi @ Oct 7 2010, 08:43 PM)

Yes, but that isn't what you said originally. You said that due to TB signing the 1998 act, crime was allowed to go out of control. That is not the same as saying that criminals have been able to exploit the HRA.

That is true, however, I would say both were right. That is according to the piece on Newsnight last year, also in various newspapers.

QUOTE

I've changed nothing, the statement is materially the same.

That is not what I meant; when clarifying you added, or explained better.

QUOTE

Speak for your self. I was alive in 1998 and onwards and I didn't see anything to say that crime had gone out of control. It tends to run in cycles, but this is not due to the act signed in 1998 as the act is still in force and according to the BCS overall crime is down.

You may not, but that doesn't make it so.

QUOTE

So either your argument has floundered (because you got personal), or your statement about getting personal is a display of losing the argument is wrong.

If my arguments got 'personal' then that was because I responded to the way you replied to me; i.e. I read it personally and not directed at the topic.

Posted by: HeatherW Oct 7 2010, 08:04 PM

If I could butt in here. I saw it as you both were being personal but I do agree with GMR when he said he was replying to Iommi’s post, thus, responded likewise. Therefore you are both are at fault. So both be gentleman and shake hands.

As for the ‘Human rights Act’. I am certainly not an expert but reading the broadsheets and watching many political shows, including news channels it has been reported over the years that criminals are using the ‘Human rights act’ more to try to get out of their crimes. I have also never read where a victim has used the ‘Human rights act’ to get help. So my conclusion is that the ‘Human rights act’ has made things worse. Let me clarify that. It might have helped certain groups that have been repressed but not the ordinary person in the street, other than the criminal (as I see it). I also believe, from my own observations, that crime has increased since Blair came to power. More so in the anti social department. I also noticed recently that the coalition government concur over this. But then that could be just political one-upmanship.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 7 2010, 08:05 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Oct 7 2010, 08:53 PM)

You may not, but that doesn't make it so.

Well the BCS and a number of other polls suggest crime is not, and indeed, never was 'out of control'. Indeed, I'm alive now and crime doesn't appear to be out of control (or at least no worse than any other time I can remember) and we are still signed up to the 1998 act.

QUOTE (GMR @ Oct 7 2010, 08:53 PM)

If my arguments got 'personal' then that was because I responded to the way you replied to me; i.e. I read it personally and not directed at the topic.

It was totally on topic because you made a claim (an exaggerated claim) that TB signed us up to the HRA which enable crime to go out of control. I maintain that this is bogus and I have explained why.

Do you think we should be signed up to the 1998 act, and if not, do you think it would make any difference?

Posted by: GMR Oct 7 2010, 08:10 PM

QUOTE (Iommi @ Oct 7 2010, 09:05 PM)

Well the BCS and a number of other polls suggest crime is not, and indeed, never was 'out of control'. Indeed, I'm alive now and crime doesn't appear to be out of control (or at least no worse than any other time I can remember) and we are still signed up to the 1998 act.

I accept that I might have used the wrong word when I said 'out of control' but it has increased. I was probably talking from a more personal note.

QUOTE

It was totally on topic because you made a claim (an exaggerated claim) that TB signed us up to the HRA which enable crime to go out of control. I maintain that this is bogus and I have explained why.

As I said above; I accept that 'out of control' use might not have been appropriate, but crime as increased since Blair came to power.

QUOTE

Do you think we should be signed up to the 1998 act, and if not, do you think it would make any difference?

No; I am against any interference from Brussels. If it was right then it should be up to our own parliament and its citizens to decide, not a foreign body.

Posted by: GMR Oct 7 2010, 08:12 PM

QUOTE (HeatherW @ Oct 7 2010, 09:04 PM)

If I could butt in here. I saw it as you both were being personal but I do agree with GMR when he said he was replying to Iommi's post, thus, responded likewise. Therefore you are both are at fault. So both be gentleman and shake hands.

As for the 'Human rights Act'. I am certainly not an expert but reading the broadsheets and watching many political shows, including news channels it has been reported over the years that criminals are using the 'Human rights act' more to try to get out of their crimes. I have also never read where a victim has used the 'Human rights act' to get help. So my conclusion is that the 'Human rights act' has made things worse. Let me clarify that. It might have helped certain groups that have been repressed but not the ordinary person in the street, other than the criminal (as I see it). I also believe, from my own observations, that crime has increased since Blair came to power. More so in the anti social department. I also noticed recently that the coalition government concur over this. But then that could be just political one-upmanship.

I am quite happy to apologise for my part.

As for the rest of what you've said; I agree.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 7 2010, 08:14 PM

QUOTE (HeatherW @ Oct 7 2010, 09:04 PM)

If I could butt in here. I saw it as you both were being personal but I do agree with GMR when he said he was replying to Iommi’s post, thus, responded likewise. Therefore you are both are at fault. So both be gentleman and shake hands.

No, I won't as I disagree. His 'your simple' post was unjustified. I said his 'rhetoric was a little simplistic'. This doesn't justify his claim that it was to make it easy for me to understand.

Calling someone's rhetoric as a little simplistic is not getting personal; it is a comment on the text. Suggesting someone is simple is being personal.

QUOTE (HeatherW @ Oct 7 2010, 09:04 PM)

As for the ‘Human rights Act’. I am certainly not an expert but reading the broadsheets and watching many political shows, including news channels it has been reported over the years that criminals are using the ‘Human rights act’ more to try to get out of their crimes. I have also never read where a victim has used the ‘Human rights act’ to get help. So my conclusion is that the ‘Human rights act’ has made things worse. Let me clarify that. It might have helped certain groups that have been repressed but not the ordinary person in the street, other than the criminal (as I see it). I also believe, from my own observations, that crime has increased since Blair came to power. More so in the anti social department. I also noticed recently that the coalition government concur over this. But then that could be just political one-upmanship.

You are, as is GMR, entitled to your opinion, I even would have agreed sometime back, but I have started to read through a lot of the rubbish reported on TV, radio and the papers. People will have anecdotally different examples, but that doesn't prove that what one experiences is the same for the majority.

What I need to stress, as GMR seems to have difficulty in this, is that the content of the 1998 act is practically the same as the act we were already under, so while you might think that the HRA has enabled more crime (I think that is wrong), that doesn't mean it was because of TB's signing of the 1998 act.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 7 2010, 08:21 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Oct 7 2010, 09:10 PM)

I accept that I might have used the wrong word when I said 'out of control' but it has increased. I was probably talking from a more personal note. As I said above; I accept that 'out of control' use might not have been appropriate, but crime as increased since Blair came to power. No; I am against any interference from Brussels. If it was right then it should be up to our own parliament and its citizens to decide, not a foreign body.

If we were to put to one side whether crime is up or down; I maintain that this isn't necessarily down to the 1998 act, not even the ECHR.

QUOTE (GMR @ Oct 7 2010, 09:10 PM)

No; I am against any interference from Brussels. If it was right then it should be up to our own parliament and its citizens to decide, not a foreign body.

There's a lot about the EU that I dislike and I feel it is because of this that we need the HRA.

Posted by: GMR Oct 7 2010, 08:32 PM

QUOTE (Iommi @ Oct 7 2010, 09:14 PM)

No, I won't as I disagree. His 'your simple' post was unjustified. I said his 'rhetoric was a little simplistic'. This doesn't justify his claim that it was to make it easy for me to understand.

Same as your remarks were unjustified. You should have clarified better, instead of your easy way of writing.

QUOTE

You are, as is GMR entitled to your opinion, I even would have agreed sometime back, but I have started to read through a lot of the rubbish reported on TV, radio and the papers. People will have anecdotally different examples, but that doesn't prove that what one experiences is the same for the majority.

I agree that there is a lot of rubbish on TV, nevertheless, what I have noticed it is only rubbish if it doesn't agree with ones point of view.

Ones experience could be the same for the majority.

QUOTE

What I need to stress, as GMR seems to have difficulty in this, is that the content of the 1998 act is practically the same as the act we were already under, so while you might think that the HRA has enable more crime (I think that is wrong), that isn't evidence of TB's signing of the 1998 act.

I agree that the act was the same, but different in the sense that originally you had to go through the EU, while the act that was incorporated into our law had a direct affect.... and a more noticeable one.

Posted by: HeatherW Oct 7 2010, 08:32 PM

QUOTE (Iommi @ Oct 7 2010, 09:14 PM)

No, I won't as I disagree. His 'your simple' post was unjustified. I said his 'rhetoric was a little simplistic'. This doesn't justify his claim that it was to make it easy for me to understand.

Calling someone's rhetoric as a little simplistic is not getting personal; it is a comment on the text. Suggesting someone is simple is being personal.

You are, as is GMR, entitled to your opinion, I even would have agreed sometime back, but I have started to read through a lot of the rubbish reported on TV, radio and the papers. People will have anecdotally different examples, but that doesn't prove that what one experiences is the same for the majority.

What I need to stress, as GMR seems to have difficulty in this, is that the content of the 1998 act is practically the same as the act we were already under, so while you might think that the HRA has enabled more crime (I think that is wrong), that doesn't mean it was because of TB's signing of the 1998 act.

You are entitled to your opinion but that was not how I read it. I read it that you wrote to provoke, rather than debate. The same with the other poster who replied to GMR. But I also must be fair here and say that I have noticed that GMR also writes to provoke a response so I would imagine that such behaviour is endemic of forum life. I would imagine that has to do with people hiding behind made up names. I wonder if you lot behave this way when out in the cold day light? But I do enjoy reading all your posts. It is very educational. At least it is better than watching fictional soaps. At least you have a real life soap opera on this Newbury forum.

As for ‘entitled to our opinion’ I say, of course. Without it we would be in an even sadder cultural environment. I wonder what George Orwell would have made of such oratory and computer life in the 21st century? Would he have thought that this was the beginning of his vision?

Posted by: GMR Oct 7 2010, 08:35 PM

QUOTE (Iommi @ Oct 7 2010, 09:21 PM)

If we were to put to one side whether crime is up or down; I maintain that this isn't necessarily down to the 1998 act, not even the ECHR.

I agree and I never said it was, I said it didn't help; two different things.

QUOTE

There's a lot about the EU that I dislike and I feel it is because of this that we need the HRA.

I doubt it will make any difference in that respect.

Posted by: GMR Oct 7 2010, 08:37 PM

QUOTE (HeatherW @ Oct 7 2010, 09:32 PM)

As for 'entitled to our opinion' I say, of course. Without it we would be in an even sadder cultural environment. I wonder what George Orwell would have made of such oratory and computer life in the 21st century? Would he have thought that this was the beginning of his vision?

Some would argue that Orwell was a visionary. I've read quite a few of his books and he saw things others didn't.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 7 2010, 09:01 PM

QUOTE (GMR @ Oct 7 2010, 09:32 PM)

Same as your remarks were unjustified. You should have clarified better, instead of your easy way of writing.

That is simply NOT true, you have even admitted you were exaggerating. If you had not exaggerated, I wouldn't have had cause to make the post I did.

QUOTE (GMR @ Oct 7 2010, 09:32 PM)

I agree that there is a lot of rubbish on TV, nevertheless, what I have noticed it is only rubbish if it doesn't agree with ones point of view.

Well researched and articulated will do me, regardless of the message.

QUOTE (GMR @ Oct 7 2010, 09:32 PM)

I agree that the act was the same, but different in the sense that originally you had to go through the EU, while the act that was incorporated into our law had a direct affect.... and a more noticeable one.

I can't see any evidence where. We were forever hearing about people 'going to Europe' for one reason or another, maybe at the tax payers expense, now that is not necessary and saves money.

QUOTE (HeatherW @ Oct 7 2010, 09:32 PM)

You are entitled to your opinion but that was not how I read it. I read it that you wrote to provoke, rather than debate.

While I cannot legislate for how you read it, on closer scrutiny, I don't see that I was 'getting personal' (which is my complaint). You might say it was harsh or brusque, but that isn't the same as getting personal. I most certainly think it was on topic and relevant.

QUOTE (HeatherW @ Oct 7 2010, 09:32 PM)

The same with the other poster who replied to GMR.

Like me, the other poster was challenging what we disagreed with.

QUOTE (HeatherW @ Oct 7 2010, 09:32 PM)

But I also must be fair here and say that I have noticed that GMR also writes to provoke a response so I would imagine that such behaviour is endemic of forum life. I would imagine that has to do with people hiding behind made up names. I wonder if you lot behave this way when out in the cold day light? But I do enjoy reading all your posts. It is very educational. At least it is better than watching fictional soaps. At least you have a real life soap opera on this Newbury forum.

Yes GMR and me are employed to wind people up.

QUOTE (GMR @ Oct 7 2010, 09:35 PM)

I agree and I never said it was, I said it didn't help; two different things.

"law and order went out of control (one of the reasons of this was him bringing in the European Human Rights legislation that empowered the criminal and did nothing for the good citizen)"

QUOTE (GMR @ Oct 7 2010, 09:35 PM)

I doubt it will make any difference in that respect.

Not if you live in France.

Posted by: GMR Oct 7 2010, 09:13 PM

QUOTE (Iommi @ Oct 7 2010, 10:01 PM)

That is simply NOT true, you have even admitted you were exaggerating. If you had not exaggerated, I wouldn't have had cause to make the post I did.

My remarks had nothing to do with the way you responded in the style you did.

QUOTE

Well researched and articulated will do me, regardless of the message.

I agree; but again, that also depends who reads it and will it support their arguments.

QUOTE

I can't see any evidence where. We were forever hearing about people 'going to Europe' for one reason or another, maybe at the tax payers expense, now that is not necessary and saves money.

And you say you don't believe in what the papers say. A lot of them exaggerated. Since it has been incorporated it has been free for all.

QUOTE

While I cannot legislate for how you read it

But I bet you will try.

QUOTE

...., on closer scrutiny, I don't see that I was 'getting personal' (which is my complaint). You might say it was harsh or brusque, but that isn't the same as getting personal.

You are splitting hairs here. Besides, I wasn't the only one who noticed it.

QUOTE

Like me, the other poster was challenging what we disagreed with.

Challenging is good; but there are ways and means.

QUOTE

Yes GMR and me are employed to wind people up.

The question is; who gets paid the most?

QUOTE

"law and order went out of control (one of the reasons of this was him bringing in the European Human Rights legislation that empowered the criminal and did nothing for the good citizen)"

Not if you live in France.

I suggest you read the lastest of what is happening in France.

Posted by: HeatherW Oct 7 2010, 09:23 PM

QUOTE (Iommi @ Oct 7 2010, 10:01 PM)

That is simply NOT true, you have even admitted you were exaggerating. If you had not exaggerated, I wouldn't have had cause to make the post I did.

Well researched and articulated will do me, regardless of the message.

I can't see any evidence where. We were forever hearing about people 'going to Europe' for one reason or another, maybe at the tax payers expense, now that is not necessary and saves money.

While I cannot legislate for how you read it, on closer scrutiny, I don't see that I was 'getting personal' (which is my complaint). You might say it was harsh or brusque, but that isn't the same as getting personal. I most certainly think it was on topic and relevant.

Like me, the other poster was challenging what we disagreed with.

Yes GMR and me are employed to wind people up.

"law and order went out of control (one of the reasons of this was him bringing in the European Human Rights legislation that empowered the criminal and did nothing for the good citizen)"

Not if you live in France.

I read your remarks as you intended them to be read. To wound. But then you both seem to be cut from the same material. Without each other I think you both would be lost. "H ell hath no fury like two old dears scorned.”

As for the remarks that you and GMR are employed to wind people up, I can believe that. I just hope you two are paid well?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 7 2010, 09:26 PM

QUOTE (On the edge @ Oct 7 2010, 08:25 PM)

You had freedom of speech and therefore protest under the English constitution and still have. Whilst the trend these days is to try and chip away at it, we have some fundamental freedoms enshrined in that and our common law. Ironically, something they never had on the Continent. The independence of our Courts is one of them and directly related, some many years ago, I saw a County Court Registrar dispense real justice. A neighbouring local authority were trying to evict one of their tenants under a very unfair clause in the Council's tenancy agreement. Indeed, trying to do it just before the law changed and abolished these unfair clauses. The Registrar heard both sides and gave his jdecision. The Council had every right to evict under the terms of the agreement but the tenant was being unjustly treated. So he gave judgment to the Council - to take effect one day after the law changed. That's justice.

I agree that our system of justice is good, and equitable relief is a possibility and would even prevail over law, but I'd need grounds and I'm not aware of any. The HRA gives me a defence in law.

Posted by: GMR Oct 7 2010, 09:27 PM

QUOTE (HeatherW @ Oct 7 2010, 10:23 PM)

I read your remarks as you intended them to be read. To wound. But then you both seem to be cut from the same material. Without each other I think you both would be lost. "H ell hath no fury like two old dears scorned."

As for the remarks that you and GMR are employed to wind people up, I can believe that. I just hope you two are paid well?

I can't speak for me (

) but you seem to have painted an accurate portrait of my old friend and nemesis and fifth Beatle Iommi.