hypochondriac

I'm not sure they would now. Snacks of panic and I don't think someone like gavin newsom would have the profile or recognition. Maybe Michelle Obama? They really fecked up not putting someone even vaguely competent on the ticket months ago.

Not sure they will have a leg to stand on given that other clubs have already take it their points deductions. They got 9 million for Maresca which apparently hasn't touched the sides.

In other exciting news looks like Leicester are imploding somewhat. A possible two rounds of points deductions this season and now linked with losing dewsbury Hall - their best player - in a possible swap deal with Brighton to be replaced but some average polish bloke or possibly he's off to Chelsea. Either way they'd have to be favourites for the drop you'd think.

Because many of the rulings are subjective and individual nation states may disagree with their interpretation of what human rights are and what they entail. It was also set up during a different time with very different circumstances.

Imagine the shitfit he'd be having if courts like the ECHR started thwarting Labour initiatives he supported. Just for the record, I'd be supporting Labour in that scenario. Those democratically elected into office should be able to enact policies they were voted in for without being stopped from doing so by foreign courts even if I disagree with the policies. That's democracy.

I haven't seen any serious links.

The ECHR isn't the continent of Europe.

Someone reported 5 million euros. Great Business if true.

There wasn't a need to challenge its rulings when there weren't multiple thousands of illegal economic migrants entering the country in dinghys.

That shouldn't exist either but it's a fair point. Like trousers said, let's make another court above the ECHR to safeguard us from their decisions. It's neverending.

George Soros

Why can other countries manage perfectly well without this protection? Why restrict it just to human rights? Why not go the whole hog and have all our laws subject to being overruled by European courts? Can't be too careful and seemingly the European courts know what's better for us than we do.

Exactly. It's as nonsensical as saying we need to be part of the EU in order to have animal welfare laws. You can disagree with brexit but we are perfectly capable of upholding animal welfare without some European body telling us what to do. Many other countries manage it and we used to as well.

Alternatively a party may want to leave because times and circumstances change and parties may want more democratic accountability for decisions including subjective issues around human rights.

Thanks that's entirely my point. The idea that we need some unelected overseer that has precedent over our own laws to prevent us from sliding into some imagined fascism is for the birds. We won't be leaving but if we decided to do so, it would be a perfectly legitimate step to take and not a sign of fascism like some on social media would have you believe.

Most of the young men arriving on boats are economic migrants who wouldn't be given asylum here even if they were processed abroad. How would processing these people abroad prevent them from coming?

That's fair and I can see why it would be opposed for that reason. My objection was to the hysterical response that we would turn into a fascist state if we weren't subject to the rulings of the ECHR. We would be perfectly capable of dealing with our own affairs in a fair and just manner without their oversight if we chose to do so. Like I said though I doubt we will ever leave anyway.

I didn't say any of that. I simply asked if it was possible to successfully uphold human rights without being part of a European club?

So any European nation has to be part of a club that has Europe in the title in order to uphold human rights?

We might end up evil and slightly fascist like Canada.

Agree with that it's hysterical nonsense. I think there's almost zero chance of us ditching it but plenty of liberal, free countries aren't part of it.

There's more if you search for Taylor (and ignore the references to Harwood bellis and Taylor Swift). I didn't see one negative comment which doesn't mean he's a world beater but probably means he's better than what we have.

Have a read of the Burnley forum. They all rate him and think he's decent. Kompany didn't rate him apparently and played him out of position.

I am like you to it looking at Wikipedia he's been at burnley a very long time. They seem to rate him here: https://www.uptheclarets.com/messageboard/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=75837&sid=6deb7746f6be76eacef7cd8ca51c83f7&start=650

Maybe. I was hoping for 20 for kwp.