Do you consider UKIP good or bad?

Give me an example other than that.

Prisoners have the right to vote because they are humans and Europe belongs to them as much as it does to you.

They aren't for it if it means forcing churches and religious institutions to violate their religious code and their religious freedoms by having to sanction unions which their code does not permit.

It's simply not putting one group of people's rights over another, a very old liberal principle.

So by the same dint we shouldn't make murder illegal because natural deaths have occurred in the past.

This is not a natural cycle - global climate fluctuates based on conditions, but those conditions we have implemented by co2 emissions. The science bears that out.

No, it was because if he was deported to Jordan he would be tried using evidence obtained by torture which would breach his right to a fair trial and was deported after an agreement with Jordan he'd get a fair trial.

I have no idea why you think it was anything to do with Article 8, absolute rubbish.

But the Government made the law so that it didn't force religious institutions to open their doors to gay weddings?

Why do you think they suddenly stopped calling it "global warming" and instead the phrase was "climate change"?

Put it this way- there seems to be an awful lot of evidence suggesting the world has not got warmer over the last 20 years...... how do you explain that?

Article 6. Fine. That's still in the ECHR though, so your point is invalid. Also, sovereignty ultimately lies with Parliament, so even though the UK is technically bound by the ECHR, it's not, and can repeal whatever it wishes. Which it has done on a number of occasions. Thus another reason an entrenched bill of rights would be better.

Why do you think they suddenly stopped calling it "global warming" and instead the phrase was "climate change"?

Put it this way- there seems to be an awful lot of evidence suggesting the world has not got warmer over the last 20 years...... how do you explain that?

Of course.

Every source which is more recent than 2010 seems to say 25%. 31% gets closer to fixing my main point aboout it not generating enough money. Of course, seeing as the current brackets are at 20% and 40%, making everyone pay 31% is going to cause the lower middle classes to pay far more tax than usual, while still losing more money from not taxing the richest echelons.

You need to show your working if you're going to make that claim which is at odds with the facts. No one would be paying more tax than they presently do under the system I highlighted with the £13,500 tax-free threshold. 31% includes the contributions which are currently taxed as National Insurance (NI would be abolished). The one special case would be pensioners who would be covered via a higher personal allowance.

Well, seeing as everyone earning less than the required 36k to get into the 40% tax bracket would be being charged 31% rather than 20% I think it stands on its own. The tax free bracket is already being moved to 10,000 so the extra 3.5k of tex-free won't make up paying 50% more income tax on the next 13k. Anyone earning more than 20k therefore will be subject to increased taxes. Cba to work out the maximum earnings at which you're still losing money but I'd estimate ~40k

Tl;dr with current figure, the government would lose money, as would everyone between 20-40k pa earnings. The money is going to rich people who are having their 45% bracket reduced down to only 31%. I don't have figures for national insurance. Seeing as 31% is probably no longer accurate, I think we'll wait for UKIP to finally publish a costed manfesto- which they refuse to do atm.

Nope - actually they date back to the French after the US Bill of Rights had been written and if they could write a bill for all of humanity. Need I point out how stupid such an idea is and how a national bill differs from a bill for an entire species?

NI was included in that fixed 31%

on the topic of kicking people out of the country they cannot kick out the legal immigrants who are often good for our country in many ways, but they will kick out the worthlesss who came here to claim benefits, never to work, as well as illegal immigrants. But of their leadership skills and who would be our prime minister if they win im not convinced that they would be any better than David cameron.

All of these will cost huge amounts of money, none generate any revenue. Could someone point me to one place where significant cuts/tax hikes are being made? And don't say the EU because the trade it brings puts a lot of doubt on that claim anyway.

Nope.

The tradition of universal rights goes back to those times, but the rights themselves had a great deal of British influence.

As I said before, in the early 40's Churchill was calling for a charter of rights. in 1948, he called for: "the eventual participation of all European peoples whose society and way of life are not in disaccord with a charter of human rights and the sincere expression of free democracy".

Churchill appointed Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe to lead the drafting of the convention. Fyfe was a conservative politician and lawyer who had prosecuted cases during Nuremburg trials. Given the UK's central role in the creation of the convention rights, it is unsurprising that they look so... well, British.

The right to life, to not be enslaved, to have a family life, freedom from torture, freedom of expression... a lot of these go back to Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights 1689. As was once said - which of these rights would we wish to discard... which are un-British?

Its a pretty big flaw in your argument:

"Omgz we are causing X to happen with all our cars and factories"

........when X also happened 10,000 years ago.

So I was just asking you how did X happen 10,000 years ago with no cars/factories etc and is it possible that its a natural cycle?