Dossiers of drivel
rovacs, 04 Sep 2006 21:49:46
Of course when the likes of Salter make claims about involuntary exploitation etc he should be confrontred and asked to direct the recipients of his words of wisdom to the sources in which he anchors his "charges".
But I think it might be good to start collecting this stuff-after all,if this came before the human rights courts here or abroad, not just Coaker and Goggins the front rank hands on abusers,but the likes of Salter could well be called to give evidence-my guess is he wouldn't like that at all-
One plank of an incompatability case would be
they did this on the basis of no evidence,they went round talking about things there was no proof of at all. The issue was demonized without any evidence the demons were actually there. To establish Coaker misrepresented,was stating falsehoods about the Consultation responses is major ammo for incompatability. And so is bringing forward statements made by loose lipped politicians and campaigners which show to the Court that they were effectively lying,or talking off the top of their head about something they knew nothing about.
Then there's the CP and response doc,brimming with unsubstantiated opinionating including a morass of bilge from the opressor resondents whose fantasies should not have been treated with any seriousness by any regime interested in establishing anything but a foregone conclusion.
And foregone conclusions on human rights issues are not on m'lud!
Wonder how the foreign judges at the ECHR will like Coaker announcing they aren't from decent societies etc as they don't criminalize EVP possession?
Tell 'em that and the incompatability ruling would be granted before Coaker could say "I'm not too good with figures!"