ukclique > railway

BevanPrice (24.08.2017, 20:27)
On 24/08/2017 07:57, Recliner wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland> wrote:
> Yes, I was wondering how rigid those rules will be. From memory, we're
> implementing a gold-plated version of the rules anyway, and bringing them
> in earlier, too. If anyone, it's the disabled lobby that will kick up a
> fuss if we defer/soften the rules, not Brussels/Strasbourg (even if we
> weren't leaving).


UK will still have to suffer judgements from the European Court of Human
Rights (ECHR), so I suspect not much will change. Remember, ECHR is the
body that stopped deportation of a criminal because it would interfere
with his "right to family life".
Graeme Wall (24.08.2017, 21:00)
On 24/08/2017 18:27, BevanPrice wrote:
> On 24/08/2017 07:57, Recliner wrote:
> UK will still have to suffer judgements from the European Court of Human
> Rights (ECHR), so I suspect not much will change. Remember, ECHR is the
> body that stopped deportation of a criminal because it would interfere
> with his "right to family life".


Presumably you will have no problem with your human rights being denied.
Roger Lynn (25.08.2017, 00:11)
On 24/08/17 07:44, Roland Perry wrote:
> Have you heard of the "Great Repeal Bill"? Was the betting that this bit
> of Brussels-inspired lavatorial red tape gets the chop by 2020.


The most misnamed piece of legislation ever, as I'm sure you're aware.

Roger
Arthur Figgis (25.08.2017, 00:26)
On 24/08/2017 07:44, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <onkutn$jkq>, at 23:17:25 on Wed, 23
> Aug 2017, Martin Coffee <martin.coffee.252153> remarked:
> Have you heard of the "Great Repeal Bill"? Was the betting that this bit
> of Brussels-inspired lavatorial red tape gets the chop by 2020.
> And we will, after all, not be under the body which would enforce the
> rule - the ECJ - any more. So perhaps just ignore it?


Isn't the deadline a purely UK thing? Which could be solved a lot more
cheaply by simply permanently locking the tiolet doors (cf class 456).
Charles Ellson (25.08.2017, 03:40)
On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 22:11:41 +0100, Roger Lynn <usenet>
wrote:

>On 24/08/17 07:44, Roland Perry wrote:
>> Have you heard of the "Great Repeal Bill"? Was the betting that this bit
>> of Brussels-inspired lavatorial red tape gets the chop by 2020.

>The most misnamed piece of legislation ever, as I'm sure you're aware.

It would be if that was its real name.
Roland Perry (25.08.2017, 10:55)
In message <onmu0m$3tg$1>, at 17:18:34 on Thu, 24 Aug
2017, Robert <coppercapped> remarked:
>On 2017-08-24 12:34:32 +0000, Roland Perry said:


>> While I was merely exploring the legality of so doing, I think the
>>economic impact is greater than you suggest when it comes to the
>>provision on shorter trains.


>Why?


Because the accessible toilet takes up a greater percentage of the
floorplan of the whole train. eg maybe ten seats [more than a regular
toilet] from a two carriage train vs also ten seats from an eight
carriage train.
Roland Perry (25.08.2017, 10:56)
In message <d1s37e-jbl.ln1>, at 22:11:41 on Thu, 24
Aug 2017, Roger Lynn <usenet> remarked:

>> Have you heard of the "Great Repeal Bill"? Was the betting that this bit
>> of Brussels-inspired lavatorial red tape gets the chop by 2020.

>The most misnamed piece of legislation ever, as I'm sure you're aware.


Indeed. In other places I refer to it as the "Great lack of Repeal
Bill".
BevanPrice (25.08.2017, 11:19)
On 24/08/2017 19:00, Graeme Wall wrote:
> On 24/08/2017 18:27, BevanPrice wrote:
> Presumably you will have no problem with your human rights being denied.


That all depends what is included in the definition of "rights".

e.g. should not the majority have the right to be protected from foreign
criminals ?
BevanPrice (25.08.2017, 11:21)
On 24/08/2017 22:26, Arthur Figgis wrote:
> On 24/08/2017 07:44, Roland Perry wrote:
> Isn't the deadline a purely UK thing? Which could be solved a lot more
> cheaply by simply permanently locking the tiolet doors (cf class 456).


Thereby inconveniencing the majority to satisfy the whims of lobbying
groups ??
rcp27g (25.08.2017, 12:14)
On Friday, 25 August 2017 10:19:32 UTC+2, BevanPrice wrote:
> On 24/08/2017 19:00, Graeme Wall wrote:
> > On 24/08/2017 18:27, BevanPrice wrote:
> >> On 24/08/2017 07:57, Recliner wrote:


> That all depends what is included in the definition of "rights".
> e.g. should not the majority have the right to be protected from foreign
> criminals ?


The "rights" definitions were largely the creation of Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe MP, who had previously worked as a prosecuter at the Nuremburg trials, and was later Lord Chancellor, and then 1st Earl of Kilmuir.

Robin
Robert (25.08.2017, 12:49)
On 2017-08-25 07:55:38 +0000, Roland Perry said:

> In message <onmu0mtg>, at 17:18:34 on Thu, 24 Aug
> 2017, Robert <coppercapped> remarked:
> Because the accessible toilet takes up a greater percentage of the
> floorplan of the whole train. eg maybe ten seats [more than a regular
> toilet] from a two carriage train vs also ten seats from an eight
> carriage train.


FFS - are you getting senile? This quote was in my earlier post, but you cut it

QUOTE
but there may be an opportunity cost in that, for example, to
accommodate a larger toilet some seating - and therefore income - will
be lost.
END QUOTE

You can't even remember the contents of the post immediately before your reply.

I really can't take you seriously any longer - Cambridge degree or not.
Robert (25.08.2017, 12:51)
On 2017-08-25 08:21:26 +0000, BevanPrice said:

> On 24/08/2017 22:26, Arthur Figgis wrote:
> Thereby inconveniencing the majority to satisfy the whims of lobbying groups ??


It's called 'cutting off your nose to spite your face'...

....bonkers.
Graeme Wall (25.08.2017, 12:53)
On 25/08/2017 09:19, BevanPrice wrote:
> On 24/08/2017 19:00, Graeme Wall wrote:
> That all depends what is included in the definition of "rights".
> e.g. should not the majority have the right to be protected from foreign
> criminals ?


Keeping him in prison protects the public, if he's completed his
sentence what are the grounds for deportation?
BevanPrice (25.08.2017, 20:15)
On 25/08/2017 10:53, Graeme Wall wrote:
> On 25/08/2017 09:19, BevanPrice wrote:
> Keeping him in prison protects the public, if he's completed his
> sentence what are the grounds for deportation?


In many cases, the sentence has included a recommendation for
deportation. Why should UK allow foreign criminals to remain here -
especially, as sometimes occurs, if that criminal is also an illegal
immigrant.
Graeme Wall (25.08.2017, 20:48)
On 25/08/2017 18:15, BevanPrice wrote:
> On 25/08/2017 10:53, Graeme Wall wrote:
> In many cases, the sentence has included a recommendation for
> deportation. Why should UK allow foreign criminals to remain here -
> especially, as sometimes occurs, if that criminal is also an illegal
> immigrant.


What case are you referring to, or just quoting a mish-mash?

Similar Threads