The European Convention of Human Rights protects the "far-right"

[@morning_glorymonster3473]

Two comments appear when you sort them by "Newest first"

[@WhenHistoryHadOtherPlans]

There's some issue with the comments section, my reply to @asterecks does not appear, so I will copy it here: I guess there would be some local, British equivalent of the Bill of Rights (just like today we have the Human Rights Act which repeats the Convention rights). However, as you noticed, it will be at risk of being amended at any time. The American Bill of Rights is part of their Constitution and the last is very hard to amend, it cannot be dome just by winning an election. Another point: who is enact this Bill of Rights in Britain, Two-tier Starmer? Would he put through Parliament a bill that limits his own power? That allows offensive speech (as the Convention does)? I don’t see this happening. BTW, the irony is that the whole Bill of Rights concept originated in Britain and now it is us, the Brits, that don’t have it. Not just the Americans but all European nations have some version of it…. except Britain. Even Bulgaria, a country not known for freedom of anything, has a Constitution which begins with the basics rights. We could use some of the texts in the Bulgarian Constitution, for example there’s an article that says that no ideology can be adopted as official. Alas, Britian, the country which invented freedom, is legally backward these days.

[@Babsza]

I CANNOT understand for the life of me why this NOT talked about or even Mentioned ! I have been researching Article 10 , how has this gone ignorantly unnoticed by everyone , the public , politicians , the police and the criminal justice system ?

[@WhenHistoryHadOtherPlans]

@@Babsza I can venture a guess why this is unnoticed by the public, by the journalists, and by the politicians. Perhaps this would explain why it is unnoticed by the rest. The people who rant about the ECHR all over the internet just repeat what they have heard, they have never bothered to read the Convention itself, let alone the case-law based on the Convention. The same applies to the journalists and for most politicians who regurgitate whatever is trendy and have neither the time nor the inclination to research things for themselves.

[@WhenHistoryHadOtherPlans]

@@Babsza BTW, that is not a new situation. Take the grooming gangs. The police was notified of the rapes a full decade before it began to investigate. Since the British police was sitting on it ass, the girls (or their guardians) could have applied to the ECtHR under Article 6 because by notifying the police they had exhausted all domestic legal means, all domestic venues, given that they cannot prosecute the perpetrators themselves. I have won cases before the Court for much less than that, I explain in one of my videos how I won a case which started with 20 pounds the BG police refused to pay. 20 pounds, not 200 or 2000! Yet, somehow it never occured to anybody in GB to use Article 6. Bottom line: the British public does not khow what the Convention is all about, it is led to believe that it is about legalizing illegal crossings of the Channel.

[@LongNeckMonster]

All comments appear when you sort them by 'newest first'.

[@jabbastag5466]

It says 4 comments now yet I see only 2,