It is fairly common to to see the ECHR blamed for some decision or other taken in a British court. So, my interest was roused when I saw an item in ‘French Week’, an English language weekly newspaper published in France. I quote “…the Justice Ministry has reminded magistrates that decisions by the European Court of Human Rights do not change French laws. Only parliament can do that. Certain courts had started to follow the ECHR ruling that an avocat should be present right from the beginning of an interrogation of a suspect, even though French law has not been changed.”
So, what is the problem in Britain?
Boadicea's Chariot 
It may be Tom, that although it is fairly common to blame ECHR, it may not be altogether accurate.
It is my understanding that it is not permitted to appeal to the ECHR unless one has taken the case all the way to the Supreme Court, although some of the European legislation with the regard to this matter has been incorporated into UK legislation, but I don’t know how much this affects decisions of lower courts.
I’m not a lawyer, by the way!
Hello, araminta, neither am I, that is why I am genuinely puzzled by the apparent difference on this between France and Britain.
Nothing, but nothing, ever, ever supercedes French national interest. It is a lesson Brits have still to learn and apply with the same ruthlessness.
OZ
“the Justice Ministry has reminded magistrates that decisions by the European Court of Human Rights do not change French laws. Only parliament can do that.”
Despite the differences between the French and the English Legal system, Tom, I believe that this is true with regard to the the system here. I am not aware that ECHR decisions are binding here either.
It would be interesting to find out the numbers of appeals to the ECHR with respect to the UK and France.
Do stop double posting, Tom. Boadicea may say that she does not mind, but I do – it’s most discourteous to her. If you want to post on MyT, fine, but don’t duplicate the same article on The Chariot. Have you no manners?
Bearsy.
But, I have been guilty of this crime, and so have others.
I am guilty of posting the same thing here and on my own site, as you do.
I honestly don’t think it is discourteous; or intended to be so.
My position has been made quite clear – and I haven’t changed my attitude.
Own site is a different matter, Araminta. Keep it there for the record, just in case, no problem.
But, just to get the facts straight, if I post on my other blog, I remove the article from The Chariot, and vice versa, as you found out the other day. And on the rare occasion that I post on MyT – the Moir cartoon the other day is the first time for months – I don’t repeat it here.
No, it probably isn’t intended to be discourteous, but lack of thought is no excuse for being verbally promiscuous! 😎
… and you can pipe down, Boadicea dear, I’m protecting your virtue whether you like it or not! 😀
Oh, this one I gotta see. Cushions – check: Crisps – check: Stubbies – check. Bring it on!
OZ
Oh bother, the phone is ringing, I must go answer it! 🙂
I’ve thought of lots of answers to this – but they would leave me open to the sort of response that I wouldn’t want posted…
Put your Cushions, Crisps, and Stubbies back in the cupboard, OZ! This one will be played out in private!! 🙂
On a serious note, I don’t have any objections to double posting at all. I can quite understand that people might want to have comments from a variety of people.
I also don’t have any objection to people expressing their opinion on double posting either.
I guess we won’t see Tom for a while. 😦
Why ever not Janus?
I’ve made my position crystal clear – and it is my site.
Bearsy has expressed a contrary opinion. This is not a PC site where everyone has to agree with me, or anyone and everyone else for that matter.
Because people react sometimes. That’s all.
Well Janus, if he doesn’t like it, he can do the other thing. But I don’t think he’ll react that way.
You can, if you like – please! 😎
Bearsy, I don’t get the discourtesy bit, different standards, I suppose.
As you know, Backside ALWAYS reacts that way! 🙂
Sorry Bear,
I don’t see any discourtesy either. It hasn’t breached any WordPress TOCs. I fail to see the problem.
The dark side is a whole other place and a distant memory to me, Tom is obviously still active there as he thankfully, is here. If he didn’t put this up, I for one would never see it. Likewise for those poor lost souls who have stuck with MyT.
Tom – the EC part is bad enough but when you add to it the PC nonsense of yooman rights it becomes a double ooch. There have been many tales of EU legislation affecting British rules, a lot have them have been total fantasy, made up by the meeja to sell copy. It’s a bit like the boy who cried wolf for me. When the actual facts are presented they are buried in so much reactionary tripe by the press that I can’t see the wood for the trees.
‘Have you no manners?’
Bearsy, I have never knowingly been discourteous to anyone on this site, and to only one person on MyT. Indeed, I take pains not to be rude. Having personal standards and living by them is admirable, but insisting that someone else live by those standards is arrogant.
Ferret, I don’t disagree with what you say here, but OZ is right about the French. My question, I suppose, is ‘why aren’t the Brits more resilient?’
Ferret:
My sentiments, too. 🙂
Tom,
“Ferret, I don’t disagree with what you say here, but OZ is right about the French. My question, I suppose, is ‘why aren’t the Brits more resilient?’”
I believe the french politicians are more accountable to their electorate. It doesn’t seem to matter what the Brit voter wants, the HOC will do as it likes. Can you see a French MP pleading guilty in a court to fraud and as long as the prison sentence is no longer than 12 months, keeping his seat?
They are all self-intererested crooks!
Zen,
Don’t get me started. Look at the lying toads lining up to vilify this Illsley scrote.
Talk about ‘let him who is without sin’. The only difference between Illsley and those money grabbing aerosols is he got caught. They are all at it thats why they call it an Allowances system not an Expenses one. There is a massive difference.
The hypocrisy of Ed Millibaby beggars belief.
Regarding the final sentence in my comment #4:
The European Court of Human Rights: Country Fact Sheets 1959-2009 is interesting.
According to this the number of judgements with respect to France is 773, and the UK 422.
Quite surprising!
Furry one, Oliver Cromwell was right. A plague on them all!
Many thanks, Araminta. Interesting!
Why don’t we ask Hollie, the new human rights expert of The Sun’s page 3: http://andreasmoser.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/human-rights-with-hollie/