1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Human Rights - About Time!?

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by Tommy B, 13 May 2006.

  1. Tommy B

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 23 Nov 2004

    Posts: 8,027

    Location: The Place To Be

  2. robmiller

    Capodecina

    Joined: 26 Dec 2003

    Posts: 16,522

    Location: London

    And so it begins!
     
  3. Tommy B

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 23 Nov 2004

    Posts: 8,027

    Location: The Place To Be

    :confused:

    The whole concept of that specific human rights law is pathetic. It is designed to PROTECT people, not to give criminals (who quite frankly should be hung) an out-of-jail card.
     
  4. robmiller

    Capodecina

    Joined: 26 Dec 2003

    Posts: 16,522

    Location: London

    The slow erosion of our freedom on the back of populist, knee-jerk xenophobia/scaremongering?

    Oh, I can see debate with you will be fruitful and rational!
     
  5. tb2000

    Wise Guy

    Joined: 7 Jul 2003

    Posts: 1,636

    Location: West Country, England

    I don't know about changing the law, they ought to scrap it completely. :mad:
     
  6. Tommy B

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 23 Nov 2004

    Posts: 8,027

    Location: The Place To Be

    I've always found your bigoted, patronizing comments offensive. Can you please cut this scornful attitude.

    We've had this argument before, and we've established the difference between this set of human rights laws and the ones that were there before 1998. How exactly does it erode our freedom? Am I going to go missing in the night or something, this is England not Iraq.

    Human rights should be there to protect INNOCENT people ONLY, not criminals. And I think regarding immigration and deporation, our Government should have complete control tbh.
     
  7. robmiller

    Capodecina

    Joined: 26 Dec 2003

    Posts: 16,522

    Location: London

    How are my comments bigoted, and how is saying "all criminals should be hung" not bigoted?

    Please, tell us: what are the differences between pre-1998 human rights legislation and the European Convention on Human Rights? List the differences and we'll see if it's a trifling matter that should be swept aside.

    Why on earth do you want to slaughter all criminals regardless of their crimes :confused:
     
  8. scorza

    Caporegime

    Joined: 22 Jun 2004

    Posts: 26,685

    Location: Deep England

    Funny I don't remember the UK being such a bad place to live before we adopted the Human Rights Act, but its certainly become a lot worse since. The fact is that people have died because of this act.

    And before people start with all the slippery slope arguments, repealing this act wouldn't be the start of a slippery slope, it'd be a line in the sand saying that criminals rights don't come before other people's.
     
  9. Tommy B

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 23 Nov 2004

    Posts: 8,027

    Location: The Place To Be

    I don't want to slaughter all criminals. That comment was in light of recent events that have aggravated me.

    Tell me Rob, what do you think about this...

    A man breaks into someone's house; he slips over and cuts his leg open. He then sues them because of this using Human Rights. Is that justified, because variations of this incident have happened over and over again?

    I don't understand why you lack the ability to argue persuasively?
     
    Last edited: 13 May 2006
  10. cleanbluesky

    Capodecina

    Joined: 2 Nov 2004

    Posts: 24,654

    I see you have an emtional investment in the present constructions then...

    I dont trust the present government to do such a thing well, but by the time it happens it will likely be Cameron at the helm.

    I think the biggest advantage to such a move would be to rebel against current standards of what is seen as 'good' and 'positive' features of society... Human Rights are also very PC...
     
    Last edited: 13 May 2006
  11. Tommy B

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 23 Nov 2004

    Posts: 8,027

    Location: The Place To Be

    Exactly. Be commiting a serious crime, you don't deserve human rights.
     
  12. Visage

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 13 Jan 2005

    Posts: 10,708

    Why do people keep mentioning 1998?

    Human rights have been part and parcel of UK law ever since it was agreed that European courts should take precedence over UK ones.

    This was a direct result of treaties signed in 1972 and 1992.

    All that was done in 1998 was to incorporate those laws into UK laws, so that people who wished to use those laws could appeal to the UK courts, rather than appeal to the UK courts, get turned down, and then appeal to the european courts, who could overrule the uk court as a result of the treaties signed b UK governments, in a process that cost tens of thousands of pounds and several months.

    So if you have a problem with people using huiman right legislation, blame the tory governments of 1972 and 1992.
     
  13. Visage

    PermaBanned

    Joined: 13 Jan 2005

    Posts: 10,708

    Can you cite any examples of where someone has succesfully sued a householder as a result of an injury incurred while on the householders property?
     
  14. Spie

    Godfather

    Joined: 17 Oct 2002

    Posts: 13,055

    Well said.
     
  15. Tommy B

    Sgarrista

    Joined: 23 Nov 2004

    Posts: 8,027

    Location: The Place To Be

    No. You're wrong. It's the 1998 one which HAS caused all the problems. That's what I was saying earlier. I don't think the UK Gov't would pay idiots to take their case to the EU courts tbh.
     
  16. pyro

    Capodecina

    Joined: 23 Nov 2002

    Posts: 16,167

    It's also a human right not to be inprisoned without being convicted, however you can now spend quite some time in prison for doing nothing other than raising suspissions to the anti terror brigade. Yes, there have been cases where these laws have been, or seem to be, abused, but that doesn't mean we have to scrap them.
     
  17. jaydee

    Gangster

    Joined: 26 Feb 2003

    Posts: 473

    This thread's a mish-mash. It's a blend of 'human rights' opinionata and questionable justice.

    In the case of human rights the UK is probably the global flagship for human rights with most of europe a close second. Another first for the country that gave the world it's language, mechanism of democracy and law, together with some of the world's greatest inventions - the turbine jet engine, international time standard, celestial navigation, hovercraft, radio science, supersonic flight control and propulsion technology, magnetic resonance imaging, scanning electron microscopy, maritime navigation, computers, the principles of electrical science, the industrial revolution, the evolution of steam power, television, the safety lamp, many of the greatest medical advances, a fundamental understanding of the mysteries of physics, construction technology, astronomy, ship building, railways, hydro-electric power, mass production, textiles, trade unions, particle physics, chemistry, financial institutions and economic principles etc... endles endless life changing advances that continue to benefit the rest of the world. British inventions...

    With the exception of most of europe and north america, complaints about 'human rights' in the rest of this chaotic planet are quite likely to result in a sound thrashing with a baton at best, and usually, far worse. Because, for most of the planet, there ain't much on offer by way of 'human rights'. For those more sceptical I'd recommend a whistle-stop tour of the middle east, africa, south america and asia. Get your banner out, start heckling the host government about freedom of speech and 'your' human rights and see how far you get. Don't expect to collect £200 as you pass Go. Be sure and come back and tell us how you get on, y'all...

    Trouble is human rights is a bit like speed limits. Sounds great but in practise most people usually ignore them. Which is why most blind people in this country don't have jobs. Most of the deaf are unemployed. A significant proportion of those diagnosed with schizophrenia are black males. Most of us are so sure of ourselves that we call people fat, slob males refer to undesirable women as munters, even politicians seem to have lost the plot about what's right and what's wrong in societies where money matters more than manners which are now considered to be a weakness. We live in a blag world where everyone's preoccupied with what everyone else has got. It's an 'I'm better than 'im' philisophy in a 'We're better than 'em' world...

    Heard an awful lot about human rights. Let's not forget human wrongs. Mary Lenaghan. Along with her friend, abducted, drugged, tortured in every conceivable way that a gang of animals could conjure up, repeatedly raped, dumped in the trunk of a car and driven to a wasteland where she was executed and her friend shot in the head. In modern 21st century Britain. Yep - we have capital punishment. Only it's for the countless victims on a day-to-day basis.

    Human rights, yes. When appropriate. Which is what the six pseudo-humans involved in the above will doubtlessly protest when they want their lives back as they turn grey. They'll blame the drugs, the scum culture. Just like the judge did on their behalf at their trial. It'll be anyone else's fault but theirs. And by the time they get out she'll have been in the ground 30 years. Which, as far as I'm concerned, is where that gang of chavs should be.
     
  18. Dingo

    Banned

    Joined: 6 Jun 2004

    Posts: 1,500

    Location: Sandy, Beds

    I don't think the point is relative in respect of the Human Rights law, which "allows" trespass onto another's property without due jurisdiction. The Tony Martin case was a classic example when the Barras family were given leave to sue Tony Martin for the death of their son who had been intimidating the individual and was in his home.

    Any law that gives people the right to enter other's homes and then have the right of appeal if they are injured is clearly a law that makes jackasses of us all!!.

    The fact that Fearon was allowed to sue in the first place because he had been injured at the time is further evidence, should any be needed after the trial that saw jury intimidation, threats of reprisal and a bounty on Tony Martin's head, that the abuse the Human Rights law allows criminal elements negates any good that can come of the law itself.

    Properly administered with due respect for the law of THIS country, the act itself is right and proper, but mismanaged by the Loony Left Government and it's band of PC Loonies, the law becomes a charter for the malcontents of Society.

    I am quite frankly amazed that the 7/7 bombers'families haven't decided to sue the Government for failing to protect the lives of their sons'!!. :(

    And slaughter all criminals.......hell why not?, they are criminals after all, unless of course someone believe's they add a positive dimension to our Society?!! :mad:
     
  19. Nikias

    Mobster

    Joined: 12 Oct 2003

    Posts: 4,773

    Location: London

    Instead of citing the Tony Martin case, why not use the one that appeared in the papers about a week ago. A woman (23) beat a burglar (20) with a pan until it broke, fetched another, chased him out of her house, knocked him off his bicycle and then held him in front of a CCTV camera until the police arrived.

    The judge commended her actions. The burglar could not sue her. There is a difference between her actions and those of Tony Martin.

    As for slaughtering all criminals...just...no. People who would steal a loaf of bread because they were hungry may as well kill the shopkeeper too because they would have nothing to lose.

    Edit:

    I found a link for the story: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,172-2173299,00.html

     
    Last edited: 14 May 2006
  20. Dingo

    Banned

    Joined: 6 Jun 2004

    Posts: 1,500

    Location: Sandy, Beds

    Good to see the rest of the country works then....if that had happened in London Ibrahim would be sueing everyone within a ten mile radius, insisting that his whole family be allowed to enter the country to guarantee his safety, demand a seat on the Hackney Council, and having the young lady deported as an danger to society....and all no doubt with Red ken's blessing!! :mad: :mad: