The ECHR is supposed to be Europe's supreme judicial authority on Human Rights matters, but the court has about as much judicial credibility as Roland Freisler's Third Reich 'people's court'.
Freisler was the antithesis of judicial impartiality; a dyed-to-the-bone Nazi, he sent scores of the regime's opponents to the guillotine, including juveniles, after they had endured his bullying and ranting in court. Had a steel beam not crushed his skull like an eggshell during a fortuitous allied air-raid in 1945, Freisler would surely have faced the judges at Nuremberg himself.
There's something hugely distasteful about a politicised judge. We appoint judges with great powers over our lives - powers not only to free or make captive, to punish or forgive, but also to take life. Even the European Convention on Human Rights, let alone the powers of our Parliament, recognises the legality of judicial murder in certain circumstances. In return for this power, we rightly demand that our most senior judges are superlatively legally capable, with deep experience gained in the exercise of justice before being appointed. And above all we demand the explicit assurance that they are absolutely politically neutral; that we will be not be disadvantaged by our beliefs should we kneel for judgement before them, but be judged purely on the rightness or wrongness of the case.
None of the above applies to the 47 members of the ECHR. All of them are political appointees, put there by partisan politicians to promote a particular brand of social policy. Of the plenum, 20 are not even judicially qualified or experienced, but compliant dags, lapdog administrators, placed to bark at their political masters' commands. In this, it is no exaggeration to say that the ECHR is far closer in character to Freisler's 'People's Court' than to Britain's Supreme Court. The ECHR is not a court but a circus, where the puffed-up buffoonery of the clowns, having run riot in the dressing-up box, deliver obiter of such blatent unjudiciousness that the spectacle would induce laughter were the 'court's' powers not so deeply enshrined in our Euro slavery.
And now the circus has demanded, against the explicit decision of our national Parliament, that we grant votes to prisoners in jail, that we do so by a date that they demand or face fines of millions. Axe murderer John Hirst is a loathsome individual who hangs around the blogosphere like a syphilis bacterium, and it makes my flesh creep to imagine the evil behind those hooded eyes. Yet the ECHR circus used the excuse of this scoff-law's appeal to impose a political - yes political, not judicial - obligation upon our sovereign nation. Politics is not the business of a proper judiciary, but the life-blood of these clownishly-costumed popinjays.
We must stand firm in rejecting this. There must be no compromise, no giving way. Thus and no further. This is far too important for any surrender. Here we must stand.