# Human rights...



## MegaSteve (Jul 9, 2013)

How can anyone who has wilfully taken another's life have expectation of any kind of 'rights'...

Why do 'we' continue to pander these 'lowlifes' and their foolish supporters...


----------



## GreiginFife (Jul 9, 2013)

We dont, we continually allow interference from Europe and people that are so far up their own arses its not funny.

As soon as you kill you forfeit any rights, human or otherwise.


----------



## mikee247 (Jul 9, 2013)

Ah the crazy world we live in.... I personally think you loose all rights when you go behind bars. You can have them back one you have done the time. Most of these scum bags would have been dead a long time ago if they lived in certain parts of the US and other country's .... bring back capital punishment??


----------



## hoop67 (Jul 9, 2013)

GreiginFife said:



			We dont, we continually allow interference from Europe and people that are so far up their own arses its not funny.

As soon as you kill you forfeit any rights, human or otherwise.
		
Click to expand...

:thup:


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 9, 2013)

Another great initiative from Labour.   Give away our rights to enforce our own laws along with a big chunk of Maggie's rebate.


----------



## Swinger (Jul 9, 2013)

GreiginFife said:



			We dont, we continually allow interference from Europe and people that are so far up their own arses its not funny.

As soon as you kill you forfeit any rights, human or otherwise.
		
Click to expand...

That might be a little controversial. I know there are a lot of bacon lovers on here.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 9, 2013)

Many American states still have the death penalty and the three strikes law.

Does anyone on here know the percentage of citizens in jail in the land of the free compared to Britain?


----------



## bogside84 (Jul 9, 2013)

You sound like the kind of guy I would be down waiting for the doors to open so that I could vote.If there is any doubt what ever you cannot give the death penalty BUT Britains prisons are full of people I would do them for nothing.



mikee247 said:



			Ah the crazy world we live in.... I personally think you loose all rights when you go behind bars. You can have them back one you have done the time. Most of these scum bags would have been dead a long time ago if they lived in certain parts of the US and other country's .... bring back capital punishment??
		
Click to expand...


----------



## DappaDonDave (Jul 9, 2013)

Bring in torture and maiming. 

A life behind bars isn't great, but a life behind bars with daily torture (waterboarding, hot pokers, removal of limbs)

Example - convicted paedo, remove their genitals and if needs be, hands. Also brand them with the label.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 9, 2013)

DappaDonDave said:



			Bring in torture and maiming. 

A life behind bars isn't great, but a life behind bars with daily torture (waterboarding, hot pokers, removal of limbs)

Example - convicted paedo, remove their genitals and if needs be, hands. Also brand them with the label.
		
Click to expand...

Even better!  Play Des O'Connor's greatest hits to them for 8 hours a day, followed by the omnibus edition of east Enders.  They would soon lose the will to live.


----------



## GreiginFife (Jul 9, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			Even better!  Play Des O'Connor's greatest hits to them for 8 hours a day, followed by the omnibus edition of east Enders.  They would soon lose the will to live.
		
Click to expand...

I reckon Des for the slight offenders and Sidney Devine Live for the serious ones.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Jul 9, 2013)

They have their human rights because our Government (irrespective of which party) is too weak to stand up to interference from bureaucrats in Brussels that don't have the common sense to make a decision and protect the real victims... the families of those left behind when they lose a loved one


----------



## Ethan (Jul 10, 2013)

Dear dear. Seems like some usually sensible people have been on the Daily Wail website. You really shouldn't. 

This issue has nothing to do with releasing Jeremy Bamber. He won't ever be released. This is to do with the right of review and possible release and it says that no judicial system is perfect that it should deny the right to review cases. There is ample evidence that the UK legal system makes mistakes and allows miscarriages of justice. Those reviews will keep Bamber in for perpetuity. 

This real issue here is the next election. The Tories have realised that the biggest threat to a majority is UKIP so they are going to play the Europe and immigrant cards. This appeals to the hang em and flog em brigade currently being seduced by UKIP. We can expect plenty more of this, perhaps even the Yes Minister episode on the British Sausage. 

The 3 strikes laws in the US are interesting. These, and a lot of the war on drugs, were supported by lobbyists for the private prison industry. This relies on having plenty of inmates to make a profit. So many black men from poor places are imprisoned for minor offences and the US has the highest incarceration rates in the civilised world. And since convicted felons lose the vote in the US, it also has the effect of reducing the Democrats vote. Political pandering, private profits, voter suppression and racism all in one nice package.

If you want to rail against unelected wealthy people interfering in the democratic process check out the UK courts decision to suppress the letters sent by Charlie Windsor to various Govt departments.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 10, 2013)

MegaSteve said:



			How can anyone who has wilfully taken another's life have expectation of any kind of 'rights'...

Why do 'we' continue to pander these 'lowlifes' and their foolish supporters...
		
Click to expand...

Because as Humans we have a responsibility to 'be Human'.

Because otherwise we may as well just put certain Newspaper Editors in total charge of our daily lives - and we've seen how responsible some of they can be!

Until there's an infalible Justice system, there is no way the Death Sentence can ever return imo.

And to suggest torture as a punishment is simply unacceptable!

Guantanamo Bay still exists, some 5 or 6 years after Obama made a pledge to close it. Suspects are flown to countries where human rights are less of an obstacle for 'questioning'. Drones are killing innocent civilians and our every one of our communications can be examined by unelected 'authorities' by rulings made in secret. The Western world still enters the area of the 'inhumane' occasionally.

To me, the time it took to deport Abu Qatada and the mechanice of the Bamber case demonstrate that EU has actually got a couple of things right after all.

As for some of the things Theresa May proposes. That's purely political manuevering of the worst kind imo.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 10, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			Because as Humans we have a responsibility to 'be Human'.

Because otherwise we may as well just put certain Newspaper Editors in total charge of our daily lives - and we've seen how responsible some of they can be!

Until there's an infalible Justice system, there is no way the Death Sentence can ever return imo.

And to suggest torture as a punishment is simply unacceptable!
		
Click to expand...

Thats right.  I guess the Des O'Connor records and Omnibus Eastenders was going a bit too far.   No one deserves that.


----------



## In_The_Rough (Jul 10, 2013)

The sooner we get out of the Human rights then the better. The decisions they come up with are crazy, with the latest being another example. The 3 individuals it mentioned should never be set free and never have their cases reviewed. Far to many do gooders around in this country as well.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 10, 2013)

In_The_Rough said:



			The sooner we get out of the Human rights then the better. The decisions they come up with are crazy, with the latest being another example. The 3 individuals it mentioned should never be set free and never have their cases reviewed. Far to many do gooders around in this country as well.
		
Click to expand...

Er. I don't think you read much detail of the ruling! Just the headline and comment of the particular item - complete with their bias. And if it was via a Newspaper, you probably bought that because it's the one that matches your own bias the most! Mob Rules OK!

I agree that (unless - and it's extremely unlikely - some huge miscarriage of Justice has been done) they should never be released though.


----------



## Andy808 (Jul 10, 2013)

There is no reason for these animals not to have a review, there are plenty of reasons not to release them and every time they have a review they will get their hopes up only to be slammed back into the system crushing their spirit. 
Let them have their pointless case reviews safe in the knowledge they will never actually get released.


----------



## Shaunmg (Jul 10, 2013)

This is all about political manoeuvring and pandering to populist misconceptions by the Tory press. Firstly the European court of human rights has nothing to do with the EU. We were signed up to the convention after the war, before we were ever members of the EU. Britain and Churchill were amongst the biggest advocators of setting it up. 

As founder members of the convention, we now canâ€™t cry foul every time there is something we donâ€™t agree with and take our ball home. 

In reality our justice system still has the final say if lifers are ever released or not. The ruling is that they have the chance of consideration for release. In reality itâ€™s unlikely any whole lifers will ever be released. 

The right wing press and the Tories are happy to play along with the ignorant miss conception that the EU and European court of human rights are one and the same thing. They are happy with the misguided view that these people are all about to set free and on the streets again. Well we are not all so stupid; thank god


----------



## Beezerk (Jul 10, 2013)

I assume this thread is about the right to review for some life sentence prisoners?
Don't really see the problem myself, not giving them even a chance for review is wrong IMO.
Let's face it, they may now get reviews but they still aren't going to be released...ever.


----------



## woody69 (Jul 10, 2013)

In_The_Rough said:



			The sooner we get out of the Human rights then the better. The decisions they come up with are crazy, with the latest being another example. The 3 individuals it mentioned should never be set free and never have their cases reviewed. Far to many do gooders around in this country as well.
		
Click to expand...

You do realise these human rights that you seem so keen to get out of, are exactly what is protecting you? 

The Act sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms that individuals in the UK have access to. They include:


- Right to life
- Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment
- Right to liberty and security
- Freedom from slavery and forced labour
- Right to a fair trial
- No punishment without law
- Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence
- Freedom of thought, belief and religion
- Freedom of expression
- Freedom of assembly and association
- Right to marry and start a family
- Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms
- Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
- Right to education
- Right to participate in free elections

Just because you have been accused of a crime shouldn't negate your access to these rights. We have a penal system built on the theory of rehabilitation not punishment alone. By convicting someone to life with no chance of review, what point do they have in trying to rehabilitate?

Also remember, just because a review is offered it doesn't mean they would be released.


----------



## MegaSteve (Jul 10, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			Because as Humans we have a responsibility to 'be Human'.
		
Click to expand...


Yep, but once you have wilfully taken the life of another you have, in my opinion, elected to leave 'the program'... So shouldn't expect continued access to 'the system'...


----------



## In_The_Rough (Jul 10, 2013)

woody69 said:



			You do realise these human rights that you seem so keen to get out of, are exactly what is protecting you? 

The Act sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms that individuals in the UK have access to. They include:


- Right to life
- Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment
- Right to liberty and security
- Freedom from slavery and forced labour
- Right to a fair trial
- No punishment without law
- Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence
- Freedom of thought, belief and religion
- Freedom of expression
- Freedom of assembly and association
- Right to marry and start a family
- Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms
- Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
- Right to education
- Right to participate in free elections

*Just because you have been accused of a crime shouldn't negate your access to these rights.* We have a penal system built on the theory of rehabilitation not punishment alone. By convicting someone to life with no chance of review, what point do they have in trying to rehabilitate?

Also remember, just because a review is offered it doesn't mean they would be released.
		
Click to expand...

Would you still say that if it was your Son or Daughter that had been murdered.
Should never be offered a review lock up and throw away the key.
Rehabilitate give me a break serial killers like the ones mentioned will never change
We had all of the above anyway without the EU meddling


----------



## In_The_Rough (Jul 10, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			Er. I don't think you read much detail of the ruling! Just the headline and comment of the particular item - complete with their bias. And if it was via a Newspaper, you probably bought that because it's the one that matches your own bias the most! Mob Rules OK!

I agree that (unless - and it's extremely unlikely - some huge miscarriage of Justice has been done) they should never be released though.
		
Click to expand...

Hardly mob rules is it anything I have said. Also don't read newspapers either. I have my opinion that the Human rights act is a load of tosh you may think it is great. Without it we would have got rid of Qatada a lot earlier and a load of other spongers and hate preachers.


----------



## stevie_r (Jul 10, 2013)

In_The_Rough said:



			Hardly mob rules is it anything I have said. Also don't read newspapers either. I have my opinion that the Human rights act is a load of tosh you may think it is great. Without it we would have got rid of Qatada a lot earlier and a load of other spongers and hate preachers.
		
Click to expand...

So just to confirm, you don't believe in things like the right to a fair trial? No punishment without trial? Free elections etc etc?
You can't choose the bits that you want to apply and who you want them to apply to (or not).


----------



## In_The_Rough (Jul 10, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			So just to confirm, you don't believe in things like the right to a fair trial? No punishment without trial? Free elections etc etc?
You can't choose the bits that you want to apply and who you want them to apply to (or not).
		
Click to expand...

Fair trial yes once sentence has been passed then that is it. Unless new evidence comes to light no reduction in time, no reviews and certainly in less cushy set ups than they have now. We have been a soft touch for far too long and that is why were in the mess we are


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 10, 2013)

The Birmingham six would have been dead for over 30 years if we had the death penalty.

America has the death penalty and twice as many citizens in prison than Britain, how do you square that one.

Ian Brady has proven that a full life imprisonment is a suitable deterrent.  He has been wanting to top himself for the last 10 years.


----------



## woody69 (Jul 10, 2013)

In_The_Rough said:



			Would you still say that if it was your Son or Daughter that had been murdered.
Should never be offered a review lock up and throw away the key.
Rehabilitate give me a break serial killers like the ones mentioned will never change
We had all of the above anyway without the EU meddling
		
Click to expand...

Not having been in that scenario I can't really answer your first question, but based on the type of person I am, yes I would like to think that I would still be saying that despite their crime, they are still entitled to the human right of review of their punishment. It's why I don't advocate the death penalty (amongst other reasons) and why I believe prison should be about rehabilitation versus punishment. Of course there are some inmates that will never change due to mental/genetic reasons, i.e. those with deep sociopathic/psychopathic tendencies, but just because of that it doesn't mean they are not entitled to a review (which will ultimately and always result in them not being released). You can't have one rule for one and not the other just because you have drawn a line in the sand as to what you think is acceptable.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 10, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			Because as Humans we have a responsibility to 'be Human'.

Because otherwise we may as well just put certain Newspaper Editors in total charge of our daily lives - and we've seen how responsible some of they can be!

Until there's an infalible Justice system, there is no way the Death Sentence can ever return imo.

And to suggest torture as a punishment is simply unacceptable!

Guantanamo Bay still exists, some 5 or 6 years after Obama made a pledge to close it. Suspects are flown to countries where human rights are less of an obstacle for 'questioning'. Drones are killing innocent civilians and our every one of our communications can be examined by unelected 'authorities' by rulings made in secret. The Western world still enters the area of the 'inhumane' occasionally.

To me, the time it took to deport Abu Qatada and the mechanice of the Bamber case demonstrate that EU has actually got a couple of things right after all.

As for some of the things Theresa May proposes. That's purely political manuevering of the worst kind imo.
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely sir!!  Could not agree more with all of the above (except perhaps on the drones issue).  And as far as @socketrocket's assertion that this is a Labour initiative - not sure where that came from.  Europen Court on Human Rights gave the ruling - but let's not botehr with the true source.

And the posturing, faux-dismay, incredulity and opposition to the ruling by the Tories is disgusting as they themselves will know that what the court has said is reasonable - in humane society.  But by making a fuss they pander to the hang-em/flog-em brigade they need to appeal to - and fires the bellies of those writing in the Right Wing press.


----------



## In_The_Rough (Jul 10, 2013)

woody69 said:



			Not having been in that scenario I can't really answer your first question, but based on the type of person I am, yes I would like to think that I would still be saying that despite their crime, they are still entitled to the human right of review of their punishment. It's why I don't advocate the death penalty (amongst other reasons) and why I believe prison should be about rehabilitation versus punishment. Of course there are some inmates that will never change due to mental/genetic reasons, i.e. those with deep sociopathic/psychopathic tendencies, but just because of that it doesn't mean they are not entitled to a review (which will ultimately and always result in them not being released). You can't have one rule for one and not the other just because you have drawn a line in the sand as to what you think is acceptable.
		
Click to expand...

Murderers lock up no chance of parole. Punishment fits the crime, take a life yours over


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 10, 2013)

In_The_Rough said:



			Would you still say that if it was your Son or Daughter that had been murdered.
		
Click to expand...

And by asking that question you make it evident why you could never be a law maker.  Making it personal does not good and impartial law make.   

Besides - as it happens there are plenty of folk out there who have lost family and friends who, when asked, are willing to forgive and indeed give the guilty a second chance - one way or the other.


----------



## woody69 (Jul 10, 2013)

In_The_Rough said:



			Fair trial yes once sentence has been passed then that is it. Unless new evidence comes to light no reduction in time, no reviews and certainly in less cushy set ups than they have now. *We have been a soft touch for far too long and that is why were in the mess we are*

Click to expand...

I love this throw away cliche line that get's spouted whenever an article or news item appears that seems to indicate being soft on crime or punishment.

Do you know that in Saudi Arabia they chop the hands off of thieves, yet strangely people still steal things. In some American states they have the death penalty for murder, yet people still kill others. In some Asian countries it's the death penalty for smuggling drugs, yet there is still drug distribution. The punishment is never a deterrent. People don't think, oh I won't commit this crime because I could be killed by firing squad.

Also, I want to ask about your comment on "cushy set ups they have now" - Have you ever been to prison?


----------



## stevie_r (Jul 10, 2013)

In_The_Rough said:



			Fair trial yes once sentence has been passed then that is it. Unless new evidence comes to light no reduction in time, no reviews and certainly in less cushy set ups than they have now. We have been a soft touch for far too long and that is why were in the mess we are
		
Click to expand...

You are missing (or ignoring) the point; a body which we are signatory to has determined that it is illegal.  We can't as a nation state which bits of the HRA we are happy with and wish to continue to impose and which bits we don't wish to implement - and more importantly that certain people dependent on race or religion are not entitled to the protections enshrined in the act.

That might not suit your sensibilities but that's the way it is.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 10, 2013)

In_The_Rough said:



			Murderers lock up no chance of parole. Punishment fits the crime, take a life yours over
		
Click to expand...

Drunk or dangerous driver knocks down and kills someone 'take a life yours over'  Really?


----------



## woody69 (Jul 10, 2013)

In_The_Rough said:



			Murderers lock up no chance of parole. Punishment fits the crime, take a life yours over
		
Click to expand...

If only it was that black and white. 

What if the murderer is a woman who has been beaten for years by her abusive partner, and one day has had enough so poisons him? In your world despite the years of abuse, she is locked up with no chance of parole as she took a life so hers is over?

Or the brother of the woman above who finds out she is being abused and kills the husband in a rage to protect her? He's taken a life, no parole for him.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 10, 2013)

woody69 said:



			If only it was that black and white. 

What if the murderer is a woman who has been beaten for years by her abusive partner, and one day has had enough so poisons him? In your world despite the years of abuse, she is locked up with no chance of parole as she took a life so hers is over?

Or the brother of the woman above who finds out she is being abused and kills the husband in a rage to protect her? He's taken a life, no parole for him.
		
Click to expand...

ah - but, but -  they say - of course there will be exceptions - circumstances - clearly not everone who kills should be hung.  

Clearly? says I - well if only circumstances were always black and white then clarity would be much easier.  But they are not

Grey areas - they say - well - some mistakes might be made - BUT IN GENERAL those who deserve it will kop it.  

So  - says - I - that's all right then?

BTW - God help England as we seem to be heading towards what will in essence be an English Parliament (see West Lothian question elsewhere here).  

And without the Scottish Labour party MPs having a say, and a massive Tory majority, the cry for a vote on hanging will once again go up.  And without the good commonsense and humanity of Scots to keep Wedminster in check I would not bet against a Yes vote.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 10, 2013)

IMO the majority of people in this country dont want us have the ECHU as the ultimate decision maker on matters of British Law.   I would go as far to say they never have and never will want to be a part of this legal system.

What most of us would prefer IMO is a bill of rights that represent the beliefs and traditions of our own people that is enshrined into law by our own Parliament and administrated by our own law Lords.    I know the previous Labour government signed us up to the ECHU but they did many things that were not supported by the country as a whole.   We are not some kind of Banana Republic that has no experience of human rights and administrating justice, we have the oldest parliament in the world with a proud record that other European Countries should envy.


----------



## MegaSteve (Jul 10, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			BTW - God help England as we seem to be heading towards what will in essence be an English Parliament (see West Lothian question elsewhere here).  

And without the Scottish Labour party MPs having a say, and a massive Tory majority, the cry for a vote on hanging will once again go up.  And without the good commonsense and humanity of Scots to keep Wedminster in check I would not bet against a Yes vote.
		
Click to expand...

Aah I had overlooked the point that those of us from south of the border are incapable of humanity...

Didn't realise when I started this thread I'd be providing a platform for a bit of English bashing...


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 10, 2013)

MegaSteve said:



			Aah I had overlooked the point that those of us from south of the border are incapable of humanity...

Didn't realise when I started this thread I'd be providing a platform for a bit of English bashing...
		
Click to expand...

Steve there is a big cultural and political difference between Scotland and England.
That is why Scotland has chosen to reject the Tories and their policies whereas England has chosen to embrace them. 
Scotland tends to care for it's people whereas England just seems to want to pigeonhole everyone.


----------



## sev112 (Jul 10, 2013)

I like Human Rights
Am not so sure on the Human Rights act
I think we would have all those good things we have in UK even without it
Personally I think if you commit a crime of certain severity you must lose certain rights, and you must not come out better off than the victims
Easy to say I suppose , less hard to legislate


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 10, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Steve there is a big cultural and political difference between Scotland and England.
That is why Scotland has chosen to reject the Tories and their policies whereas England has chosen to embrace them. 
Scotland tends to care for it's people whereas England just seems to want to pigeonhole everyone.
		
Click to expand...

Tarred with the same brush Eh!   You will be able to post anti English comments here, If I tried to debate this I would end up with more infractions.   The amount of anti English hatred on here saddens me, its not that it is meant to be funny either.

I will have to retract from any further comments on this matter.


----------



## bluewolf (Jul 10, 2013)

So, we're the right wing barbarian English, as opposed to the left wing humanitarian Scottish?  I'm calling casual racism on this. Pathetic in the extreme and more proof that the problem isn't the English or the Scottish. It's the a#*$holes on either side that just want to provoke. Lets see how this proceeds shall we?


----------



## Beezerk (Jul 10, 2013)

Christ, wasn't this thread about human rights?


----------



## stevie_r (Jul 10, 2013)

Beezerk said:



			Christ, wasn't this thread about human rights?
		
Click to expand...

This is the golf monthly forum, start a thread on your favourite fruit and certain posters will turn it into Scotland v England.


----------



## bluewolf (Jul 10, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			This is the golf monthly forum, start a thread on your favourite fruit and certain posters will turn it into Scotland v England.
		
Click to expand...

And it's the same few posters every time.


----------



## In_The_Rough (Jul 10, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			And by asking that question you make it evident why you could never be a law maker.  Making it personal does not good and impartial law make.   

Besides - as it happens there are plenty of folk out there who have lost family and friends who, when asked, are willing to forgive and indeed give the guilty a second chance - one way or the other.
		
Click to expand...

Awful lot that are not willing to forgive as well. Swings both ways. If a relative of mine was killed in cold blood by some low life I could never forgive. Wouldn't be a law maker for all the money in the world as someone is bound to be upset proved by the difference of views on here


----------



## stevie_r (Jul 10, 2013)

bluewolf said:



			And it's the same few posters every time.
		
Click to expand...

Yup


----------



## In_The_Rough (Jul 10, 2013)

woody69 said:



			I love this throw away cliche line that get's spouted whenever an article or news item appears that seems to indicate being soft on crime or punishment.

Do you know that in Saudi Arabia they chop the hands off of thieves, yet strangely people still steal things. In some American states they have the death penalty for murder, yet people still kill others. In some Asian countries it's the death penalty for smuggling drugs, yet there is still drug distribution. The punishment is never a deterrent. People don't think, oh I won't commit this crime because I could be killed by firing squad.

Also, I want to ask about your comment on "cushy set ups they have now" - Have you ever been to prison?
		
Click to expand...

Know people that have been to the slammer and they get 3 meals a day without fail, pool tables to use, video games, TV's in their room, far too much for somebody that has committed a crime so yes I do know what they are allowed. What would you do with cold blooded killers then? Most people can sit and criticise but there is never any viable solution


----------



## In_The_Rough (Jul 10, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			You are missing (or ignoring) the point; a body which we are signatory to has determined that it is illegal.  We can't as a nation state which bits of the HRA we are happy with and wish to continue to impose and which bits we don't wish to implement - and more importantly that certain people dependent on race or religion are not entitled to the protections enshrined in the act.

That might not suit your sensibilities but that's the way it is.
		
Click to expand...

Agree that is the way it is people's hands are tied, all I am saying is that it is about time we opted out altogether and made our own rules and not be held back by red tape and pompous EU civil servants


----------



## In_The_Rough (Jul 10, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Drunk or dangerous driver knocks down and kills someone 'take a life yours over'  Really?
		
Click to expand...

By yours I meant the perpetrator of the crime. Drunk or Dangerous driver kills someone then life imprisonment.


----------



## In_The_Rough (Jul 10, 2013)

woody69 said:



			If only it was that black and white. 

What if the murderer is a woman who has been beaten for years by her abusive partner, and one day has had enough so poisons him? In your world despite the years of abuse, she is locked up with no chance of parole as she took a life so hers is over?

Or the brother of the woman above who finds out she is being abused and kills the husband in a rage to protect her? He's taken a life, no parole for him.
		
Click to expand...

With regards to the woman this would probably be set as under diminished responsibility. Again if the brother was aware of the abuse this would probably be set as under diminished responsibility.


----------



## stevie_r (Jul 10, 2013)

In_The_Rough said:



			Agree that is the way it is people's hands are tied, all I am saying is that it is about time we opted out altogether and made our own rules and not be held back by red tape and pompous EU civil servants
		
Click to expand...

Read back through the threads mate, the ECHR is nothing to do with the EU, it used to be known as the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which came into force in the early 50's, primarily I think due to some German bloke going a bit mental the decade before.  Britain would have been a fairly large influence in it's adoption as we were the big boys in Europe at the time.


----------



## stevie_r (Jul 10, 2013)

In_The_Rough said:



			With regards to the woman this would probably be set as under diminished responsibility. Again if the brother was aware of the abuse this would probably be set as under diminished responsibility.
		
Click to expand...

I doubt the brother would to be honest mate, sounds more premeditated - I'm presuming that's what a prosecution would allege.


----------



## In_The_Rough (Jul 10, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			Read back through the threads mate, the ECHR is nothing to do with the EU, it used to be known as the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms which came into force in the early 50's, primarily I think due to some German bloke going a bit mental the decade before.  Britain would have been a fairly large influence in it's adoption as we were the big boys in Europe at the time.
		
Click to expand...

1959 it was formed. Maybe have been the big boys at the time certainly not now. In my opinion it is time to leave.  Things have moved on and times have changed, way too many hide/delay under this bill/law/act whatever you wish to call it.


----------



## In_The_Rough (Jul 10, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			I doubt the brother would to be honest mate, sounds more premeditated - I'm presuming that's what a prosecution would allege.
		
Click to expand...

Did Law at A Level and yes prosecution would allege what you said, however defence would focus on what I said and not being of sound mind. Unlike random serial killers etc who murder complete strangers. Not saying who would win the case but that would be the way it went


----------



## stevie_r (Jul 10, 2013)

Good grief!!! Can people not get it through their heads that many/most of the rights we take for granted are enshrined in this act?  So you wish to kiss goodbye to an act that protects all of those rights?


'You're going to prison'

'But I haven't even had a trial, what about my human rights' 

'Ah well, you decided you didn't want those'


----------



## In_The_Rough (Jul 10, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			Good grief!!! Can people not get it through their heads that many/most of the rights we take for granted are enshrined in this act?  So you wish to kiss goodbye to an act that protects all of those rights?


'You're going to prison'

'But I haven't even had a trial, what about my human rights' 

'Ah well, you decided you didn't want those'
		
Click to expand...

Do you honestly think if we scrapped ECHR this country would adopt those tactics that you mention


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 10, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			Good grief!!! Can people not get it through their heads that many/most of the rights we take for granted are enshrined in this act?  So you wish to kiss goodbye to an act that protects all of those rights?


'You're going to prison'

'But I haven't even had a trial, what about my human rights' 

'Ah well, you decided you didn't want those'
		
Click to expand...

This act was enshrined into our law by the last Labour Government.  We had managed to be a Law abiding country that had managed to create laws to protect the individual from the State dating right back to Magna Carta. 

We are quite able to carry on making our own laws that will still protect the citizen's human rights.   We would also be able to expel people from our country that were a threat to us and had no right to be here without the interference of the ECHR over ruling our own good sense and judgement.


----------



## In_The_Rough (Jul 10, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			This act was enshrined into our law by the last Labour Government.  We had managed to be a Law abiding country that had managed to create laws to protect the individual from the State dating right back to Magna Carta. 

We are quite able to carry on making our own laws that will still protect the citizen's human rights.   We would also be able to expel people from our country that were a threat to us and had no right to be here without the interference of the ECHR over ruling our own good sense and judgement.
		
Click to expand...

Here here.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 10, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			IMO the majority of people in this country dont want us have the ECHU as the ultimate decision maker on matters of British Law.
		
Click to expand...

But it's not a real decision maker. The only decisions it makes is whether particular activity breaches provisions of the human rights that the country has signed up to. It is part of The Council of Europe, quite separate from the EU, but with some relationships with it. The highest court of the EU is the European Court of Justice, which has a far wider range of areas to of jurisdiction. There is a peculiar relationship between those bodies. The EU is not a member of the Council of Europe, so considers itself not bound by ECHU rulings, but all member states are signatories and the ECJ gives the ECHU 'special significance' as a 'guiding principle'.

So it's either ignorance or quite deliberate misleading statements by the likes of Theresa May and previous Home Office Ministers from both parties. Either way, it does nothing to demonstrate their competence!

And the ECHU only say's 'it's a breach'. It's up to the member State to amend their activity so that there is no breach. How/what they do is up to the member State. That point was made quite clearly by the ECHU, as it normally does along with pointing the area that needs addressing - to hopefully avoid future cases.


----------



## stevie_r (Jul 10, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			This act was enshrined into our law by the last Labour Government.  We had managed to be a Law abiding country that had managed to create laws to protect the individual from the State dating right back to Magna Carta. 

We are quite able to carry on making our own laws that will still protect the citizen's human rights.   We would also be able to expel people from our country that were a threat to us and had no right to be here without the interference of the ECHR over ruling our own good sense and judgement.
		
Click to expand...

And you have that much faith in our government do you? Regardless of party?
Checks and balances are necessary in all things.


----------



## stevie_r (Jul 10, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			This act was enshrined into our law by the last Labour Government.  *We had managed to be a Law abiding country that had managed to create laws to protect the individual from the State dating right back to Magna Carta*. 

We are quite able to carry on making our own laws that will still protect the citizen's human rights.   We would also be able to expel people from our country that were a threat to us and had no right to be here without the interference of the ECHR over ruling our own good sense and judgement.
		
Click to expand...

If you honestly believe that then you know nothing, sorry let me change that, absolutely nothing about British history.


----------



## Scouser (Jul 10, 2013)

GreiginFife said:



			As soon as you kill you forfeit any rights, human or otherwise.
		
Click to expand...

Police, army and self defence?!?!



mikee247 said:



			I personally think you loose all rights when you go behind bars.
		
Click to expand...

before or after trial?





HomerJSimpson said:



			They have their human rights because our Government (irrespective of which party) is too weak to stand up to interference from bureaucrats in Brussels that don't have the common sense to make a decision and protect the real victims... the families of those left behind when they lose a loved one
		
Click to expand...

That is not what the HRA is about 



They were just points from the first couple of points I suggest people move away from guilty not guilty and get a real understanding of the actual act?

Does any one know what there rights are under the act and any specifics such as the absolute rights????


I think people would actually be shocked. For example you DO NOT HAVE the right to life......


oh but you do have an absolute right to a fair trial ....or would you like that to just apply to the innocent????


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 10, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			This act was enshrined into our law by the last Labour Government.  We had managed to be a Law abiding country that had managed to create laws to protect the individual from the State dating right back to Magna Carta. 

We are quite able to carry on making our own laws that will still protect the citizen's human rights.   We would also be able to expel people from our country that were a threat to us and had no right to be here without the interference of the ECHR over ruling our own good sense and judgement.
		
Click to expand...

Actually, the Human Rights Act 1998 merely short-circuit the process by making the rulings of the ECHU effectively part of UK Law, so precedent is established. 

Prior to HRA, UK Courts rule on existing (common) law and then the Appeals process begins, possibly with a ruling in the ECHU.

For new laws or where no precedent exists, UK Courts make a ruling on the UK Law and the Appals process bgins with  ruling in the ECHU. This is what happened in the Abu Qatada case - along with a few other spirals!

So enshrining the HR Convention into UK Law was meant to speed the process up. It has allowed far more to claim that their rights have been breached - and far earlier/more cheaply. But the UK Judiciary are quite good at determining whether that is truly so. The fact that they are now bound to consider this is a good thing imo. Their decisions can still be appealed up the Courts system right up to the ECHU.

Btw. Magna Carta may have established a principle, but it only covered about 5% of the population - 'freemen'. The vast majority of the population worked as serfs for the Barons who forced King John to sign it, so were not covered. A classic example of making laws to suit self interests!


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 11, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			If you honestly believe that then you know nothing, sorry let me change that, absolutely nothing about British history.
		
Click to expand...

A rather Glib statement without substance.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 11, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			Actually, the Human Rights Act 1998 merely short-circuit the process by making the rulings of the ECHU effectively part of UK Law, so precedent is established. 

Prior to HRA, UK Courts rule on existing (common) law and then the Appeals process begins, possibly with a ruling in the ECHU.

For new laws or where no precedent exists, UK Courts make a ruling on the UK Law and the Appals process bgins with  ruling in the ECHU. This is what happened in the Abu Qatada case - along with a few other spirals!

So enshrining the HR Convention into UK Law was meant to speed the process up. It has allowed far more to claim that their rights have been breached - and far earlier/more cheaply. But the UK Judiciary are quite good at determining whether that is truly so. The fact that they are now bound to consider this is a good thing imo. Their decisions can still be appealed up the Courts system right up to the ECHU.

Btw. Magna Carta may have established a principle, but it only covered about 5% of the population - 'freemen'. The vast majority of the population worked as serfs for the Barons who forced King John to sign it, so were not covered. A classic example of making laws to suit self interests!
		
Click to expand...

Magna Carta was the start of this process, not where it finished.

I dont want the ECHR to have any influence on British law, I prefer us to have a system that is closed loop and respects the laws passed by our own elected representatives.  The house of Lords used to be the ultimate court of appeal which to me is better than a group of European Judges from countries with little in common with our way of life.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 11, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			Magna Carta was the start of this process, not where it finished.

I dont want the ECHR to have any influence on British law, I prefer us to have a system that is closed loop and respects the laws passed by our own elected representatives.  The house of Lords used to be the ultimate court of appeal which to me is better than a group of European Judges from countries with little in common with our way of life.
		
Click to expand...

You again missed - or more likely ignored - the point! Read the post or do a Google on ECHR! And note that it is different from ECJ!

By signing up, indeed proposing, a Council of Europe and the subsequent Convention of Human Rights,  Britain committed itself to having that as  supreme authority on Human Rights. So it's been part of the British Legal Process ever since. All the HRA did was make it a part of British Law, so courts had to consider it immediately, rather by deference/appeals! 

Here's the link! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Court_of_Human_Rights

There's also  link in that entry about the ECJ, which does make decisions, on EU Law, that may affect the UK 'from above', though it's the EU Parliament that makes the laws! That's the institution that you seem to be really opposed to, and with some jistification imo.!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 11, 2013)

MegaSteve said:



			Aah I had overlooked the point that those of us from south of the border are incapable of humanity...

Didn't realise when I started this thread I'd be providing a platform for a bit of English bashing...
		
Click to expand...

I'm not bashing the English at all.  

Just that my sense is that there is a majority in England who would vote for return of hanging - and when right wing politicians are under pressure from alternative right wing parties they will look for the easiest acceptable and attractive policy.  Just as the Tories are at the moment over Human Rights.  It's easy to spout policy to curry favour with your core electorate - pretending that it could be delivered when in fact you know it can't be.  But say it can't and you get shot down as not caring about what we in this country want rather than what Europe wants.

So I fear that circumstances *could* end up with return of cap pun.  I don't think it will and dearly hope not - and hope the English electorate have the humanity to know that calls for return are misguided and wrong.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 11, 2013)

In_The_Rough said:



			By yours I meant the perpetrator of the crime. Drunk or Dangerous driver kills someone then life imprisonment.
		
Click to expand...

Not sure I understand your distinction - driver killed someone - eye for an eye and all that surely.  I guess you are saying that drunk or dangerous drivers are not premeditated murderers - but who mentioned permeditated?  Or maybe it's because all murderers are evil and must be done away with.  Never mind the mentally ill - but are not *all * murderers in some way mentally ill or unstable.  And straighjt saway we're in the grey areas. And once things are not B&W then miscarriages of justice will happen and innocent or helpless individuals will be killed by the state.  Not in my name they won't.


----------



## MegaSteve (Jul 11, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I'm not bashing the English at all.  

.
		
Click to expand...

Well, that's how your post read... Not just to me either... Even your bedfellow DfT felt the need to offer a half-hearted explanation...

As for capital punishment don't see that ever returning in our lifetimes... It, as has been said, not a proven deterrent... Though I will admit, at times, there are occasions I think it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 11, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			But it's not a real decision maker. The only decisions it makes is whether particular activity breaches provisions of the human rights that the country has signed up to. It is part of The Council of Europe, quite separate from the EU, but with some relationships with it. The highest court of the EU is the European Court of Justice, which has a far wider range of areas to of jurisdiction. There is a peculiar relationship between those bodies. The EU is not a member of the Council of Europe, so considers itself not bound by ECHU rulings, but all member states are signatories and the ECJ gives the ECHU 'special significance' as a 'guiding principle'.

So it's either ignorance or quite deliberate misleading statements by the likes of Theresa May and previous Home Office Ministers from both parties. Either way, it does nothing to demonstrate their competence!

And the ECHU only say's 'it's a breach'. It's up to the member State to amend their activity so that there is no breach. How/what they do is up to the member State. That point was made quite clearly by the ECHU, as it normally does along with pointing the area that needs addressing - to hopefully avoid future cases.
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely - the level of misunderstanding in this country over the various European legislative and advisory bodies and how they relate and interact is shocking - shocking because that ignorance is played upon and used by the politicians and opinion formers to their own political ends.  So we hear implied that if it's got the word Europe in it then it's part and parcel of the same thing - and we need to get out of that THING because it MAKES us do things we are told we don't want to do - and what good does IT do us anyway?

Shameful and sad really.


----------



## In_The_Rough (Jul 11, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Not sure I understand your distinction - driver killed someone - eye for an eye and all that surely.  I guess you are saying that drunk or dangerous drivers are not premeditated murderers - but who mentioned permeditated?  Or maybe it's because all murderers are evil and must be done away with.  Never mind the mentally ill - but are not *all * murderers in some way mentally ill or unstable.  And straighjt saway we're in the grey areas. And once things are not B&W then miscarriages of justice will happen and innocent or helpless individuals will be killed by the state.  Not in my name they won't.
		
Click to expand...

Life term is 25 years. Once that is served then they will be released. However the names mentioned which kicked this off are those that are given a life term without parole, those deemed to dangerous to ever be released and quite rightly so, people like Brady, Bamber, Neilsen, Moore etc. Those should never be released back into society and should not have the slightest chance of doing so.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 11, 2013)

In_The_Rough said:



			Murderers lock up no chance of parole. Punishment fits the crime, take a life yours over
		
Click to expand...




In_The_Rough said:



			By yours I meant the perpetrator of the crime. Drunk or Dangerous driver kills someone then life imprisonment.
		
Click to expand...




In_The_Rough said:



			With regards to the woman this would probably be set as under diminished responsibility. Again if the brother was aware of the abuse this would probably be set as under diminished responsibility.
		
Click to expand...

So do you believe there should be a separate tariff for these two types of killings - and neither should be the same as premeditated murder which again should be different to, and less than, Serial/multiple murders.

Or do you believe that they all rate the same tariff.

And what if, by a miracle and the brilliance of the medical folk involved, the Drunk or Dangerous driver merely turns the victim into a vegetable? Does that deserve a lesser tariff - simply because the perpetrator 'got lucky'! And at what point do you actually set the boundary between life - meaning whole of life - imprisonment and a 1 year ban and a fine?!

You can't have it all ways and have a sentence/tariff that demonstrates Justice!



In_The_Rough said:



			Agree that is the way it is people's hands are tied, all I am saying is that it is about time we opted out altogether and made our own rules and not be held back by red tape and pompous EU civil servants
		
Click to expand...

You really don't seem to understand the way it works at all!

But that has always been one of the advantage the propaganda merchants (aka spin doctors) and orators have always had over the plebs - we are easily led (which was what my 'mob rule' comment somewhere was about).



In_The_Rough said:



			Life term is 25 years. Once that is served then they will be released. However the names mentioned which kicked this off are those that are given a life term without parole, those deemed to dangerous to ever be released and quite rightly so, people like Brady, Bamber, Neilsen, Moore etc. Those should never be released back into society and should not have the slightest chance of doing so.
		
Click to expand...

Not quite right on the term. And definitely not right on the release!

And Whole of Life term is already catered for. Once again, you (deliberately?) misunderstand what it was all about!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_imprisonment_in_England_and_Wales


----------



## In_The_Rough (Jul 11, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			So do you believe there should be a separate tariff for these two types of killings - and neither should be the same as premeditated murder which again should be different to, and less than, Serial/multiple murders.

Or do you believe that they all rate the same tariff.

And what if, by a miracle and the brilliance of the medical folk involved, the Drunk or Dangerous driver merely turns the victim into a vegetable? Does that deserve a lesser tariff - simply because the perpetrator 'got lucky'! And at what point do you actually set the boundary between life - meaning whole of life - imprisonment and a 1 year ban and a fine?!

You can't have it all ways and have a sentence/tariff that demonstrates Justice!



You really don't seem to understand the way it works at all!

But that has always been one of the advantage the propaganda merchants (aka spin doctors) and orators have always had over the plebs - we are easily led (which was what my 'mob rule' comment somewhere was about).
		
Click to expand...

Don't know who you are referring to as plebs if it is me then grow up. Not separate tariffs but some are passed out where a minimum term is set and others are given full life terms. In the car crash case you mention then yes obviously if the victim survives then there is nothing else that can be done which is already the case now anyway so a totally useless point.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 11, 2013)

In_The_Rough said:



			Don't know who you are referring to as plebs
		
Click to expand...

This: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plebs

You, me and the rest of the 'ordinary citizens';  'the man in the street'; 'the general populous'

The mob that enjoyed seeing Lions killing Christians and got behind Hitler (and Stalin for that matter) and their persecution of Jews, Homosexuals, Academics or anyone else deemed a threat! And there have certainly been instances of the same in UK over the centuries!

It's exactly the prevention of that sort of issue that The Council of Europe and ECHR was set up to combat. And because it causes a minor bit of embarassment and inconvenience, all the toys come out of the pram!

Sorry. That's just plain wrong! Such decisions should be rejoiced imo.! And any government that simply accepts them and works around the ruling as they suggest, rather than launching toys and wanting to take the ball home, should be applauded


----------



## In_The_Rough (Jul 11, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			This: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plebs

You, me and the rest of the 'ordinary citizens';  'the man in the street'; 'the general populous'
		
Click to expand...

The modern usage is the part I am not keen on : "used as a derogatory term for someone considered unsophisticated or uncultured".


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 11, 2013)

In_The_Rough said:



			The modern usage is the part I am not keen on : "used as a derogatory term for someone considered unsophisticated or uncultured".
		
Click to expand...

As I've posted, you've got so much wrong in your posts, there's possibly an argument for applying the 'modern usage', though that wasn't how I was using it!

I'd certainly apply the modern usage to myself though!


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 11, 2013)

The last person hanged in the UK was a young man with learning difficulties.
His colleague had a gun in his hand and the unarmed policeman tried to get him to hand it over.
The lad said 'let him have it' which the gunman took to mean 'shoot him'.


----------



## In_The_Rough (Jul 11, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			As I've posted, you've got so much wrong in your posts, there's possibly an argument for applying the 'modern usage', though that wasn't how I was using it!

I'd certainly apply the modern usage to myself though! 

Click to expand...

Just don't want any chance of nutters being released. If you are happy with that being a possibility then great.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 11, 2013)

Doon frae Troon said:



			The last person hanged in the UK was a young man with learning difficulties.
His colleague had a gun in his hand and the unarmed policeman tried to get him to hand it over.
The lad said 'let him have it' which the gunman took to mean 'shoot him'.
		
Click to expand...

And a jury found him guilty after considering the evidence.    Should something different have happened?


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 12, 2013)

In_The_Rough said:



			Just don't want any chance of nutters being released. If you are happy with that being a possibility then great.
		
Click to expand...

Look back through my posts.

Have I even hinted that these guys, or anyone with 'Whole of Life' tariff, will ever be released? No!

And check the Ruling by the ECHR. Have they even hinted that these guys should ever be released? No!

All they have done is re-establish the situation as it was prior to 2003 - where there was a review.


----------



## stevie_r (Jul 12, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			And a jury found him guilty after considering the evidence.    Should something different have happened?
		
Click to expand...

Seeing as he didn't actually kill anyone or indeed handle a firearm then yes, funnily enough :angry:


----------



## Sweep (Jul 12, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			So just to confirm, you don't believe in things like the right to a fair trial? No punishment without trial? Free elections etc etc?
You can't choose the bits that you want to apply and who you want them to apply to (or not).
		
Click to expand...

We had all that before we signed up to European Human Rights. The British are not heathens and neither do we need anyone else to tell us what is right or wrong. Are YOU saying it was right that we couldn't deport Qatada? Shouldn't it be up to us who we keep in this country and who we can deport?


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 12, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			Seeing as he didn't actually kill anyone or indeed handle a firearm then yes, funnily enough :angry:
		
Click to expand...

So all twelve of the jury were wrong?

The one that shot the policeman was under age to be tried for murder, the accused made the statement you mentioned earlier.    The jury decided that when he said "Give it to him" he meant for him to shoot the policeman.     Thats the decision they made and it is pointless to question their decision.    I have been on a jury and it can be very difficult to reach a decision, it can require a lot of debate and consideration but we have no better way to do this.


----------



## Sweep (Jul 12, 2013)

Ethan said:



			Dear dear. Seems like some usually sensible people have been on the Daily Wail website. You really shouldn't. 

This issue has nothing to do with releasing Jeremy Bamber. He won't ever be released. This is to do with the right of review and possible release and it says that no judicial system is perfect that it should deny the right to review cases. There is ample evidence that the UK legal system makes mistakes and allows miscarriages of justice. Those reviews will keep Bamber in for perpetuity.
		
Click to expand...

And Bamber should get a review. His victims get one, don't they? 
No? 
I wonder what happened to their human rights.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 12, 2013)

Sweep said:



			And Bamber should get a review. His victims get one, don't they? 
No? 
I wonder what happened to their human rights.
		
Click to expand...

Covered in Post 63.

The Old Testament vengeance approach has morphed *towards* New Testament atonement and rehabilitation if not forgiveness. Exceptional cases may exist, but there are still certain requirements/obligations.  



Sweep said:



			We had all that before we signed up to European Human Rights. The British are not heathens and neither do we need anyone else to tell us what is right or wrong. Are YOU saying it was right that we couldn't deport Qatada? Shouldn't it be up to us who we keep in this country and who we can deport?
		
Click to expand...

As I posted early, there have plenty of instances where the assumed rights have been breached. It is in order to prevent such a possibility that the Convention was created.

The intention is to prevent repeats of the type of State Oppression experienced in Hitler's Germany and, like Golf, there has to be a set of Rules that define where the boundaries are!

The UK Government recognised years ago that it couldn't deport Qatada back to Jordan while Jordan wasn't able to guarantee that the evidence was not produced through torture! Once that guarantee was obtained, it was a trivial exercise! UK Gov just decided that it was simpler to use another strategy, a decision that turned out to be wrong and extremely expensive!


----------



## In_The_Rough (Jul 12, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			Covered in Post 63.

The Old Testament vengeance approach has morphed *towards* New Testament atonement and rehabilitation if not forgiveness. Exceptional cases may exist, but there are still certain requirements/obligations.  


As I posted early, there have plenty of instances where the assumed rights have been breached. It is in order to prevent such a possibility that the Convention was created.

The intention is to prevent repeats of the type of State Oppression experienced in Hitler's Germany and, like Golf, there has to be a set of Rules that define where the boundaries are!

*The UK Government recognised years ago that it couldn't deport Qatada back to Jordan while Jordan wasn't able to guarantee that the evidence was not produced through torture*! Once that guarantee was obtained, it was a trivial exercise! UK Gov just decided that it was simpler to use another strategy, a decision that turned out to be wrong and extremely expensive!
		
Click to expand...

This is us all over, why should we give a toss what they do to him after all the hate preaching he has been doing.


----------



## stevie_r (Jul 12, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			So all twelve of the jury were wrong?

The one that shot the policeman was under age to be tried for murder, the accused made the statement you mentioned earlier.    The jury decided that when he said "Give it to him" he meant for him to shoot the policeman.     Thats the decision they made and it is pointless to question their decision.    I have been on a jury and it can be very difficult to reach a decision, it can require a lot of debate and consideration but we have no better way to do this.
		
Click to expand...

So it sits easy with you a young man, who didn't fire the shot, with a mental age significantly below that Christopher Craig who did fire the shot, was hung?  It doesn't bother you that there is significant forensic evidence to suggest that Craig didn't kill anyone either, that the round came from a police revolver?

Let's be absolutely clear here, the British public wanted blood in vengeance for the death of a policeman - it didn't matter whose.

Neither should we forget that Bentley received a Royal Pardon, posthumous of course but based on the fact that his conviction was unsafe for several reasons.


----------



## In_The_Rough (Jul 12, 2013)

Sweep said:



			And Bamber should get a review. His victims get one, don't they? 
No? 
I wonder what happened to their human rights.
		
Click to expand...

:thup: this is what I have been saying all along, everything is set up far more toward the attacker than the victims.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 12, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			So it sits easy with you a young man, who didn't fire the shot, with a mental age significantly below that Christopher Craig who did fire the shot, was hung?  It doesn't bother you that there is significant forensic evidence to suggest that Craig didn't kill anyone either, that the round came from a police revolver?

Let's be absolutely clear here, the British public wanted blood in vengeance for the death of a policeman - it didn't matter whose.

Neither should we forget that Bentley received a Royal Pardon, posthumous of course but based on the fact that his conviction was unsafe for several reasons.
		
Click to expand...

Please dont make assumptions on my behalf.   No it doesn't sit easy with me that he was executed but I accept that this was the ultimate punishment at the time, it wasn't me but twelve jurors that found him guilty, are you suggesting they were somehow coerced by public opinion.   As I said it is and was the system of deciding guilt, not perfect but it's all we have.


----------



## stevie_r (Jul 12, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			Please dont make assumptions on my behalf.   No it doesn't sit easy with me that he was executed but I accept the this was the ultimate punishment at the time, it wasn't me but twelve jurors that found him guilty, are you suggesting they were *somehow coerced by public opinion*.   As I said it is and was the system of deciding guilt, not perfect but it's all we have.
		
Click to expand...

That, the way they were directed by the judge and crucial forensic evidence that wasn't presented.

How on earth can you accept a system that determines guilt, issues the death penalty but isn't perfect?


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 12, 2013)

In_The_Rough said:



			This is us all over, why should we give a toss what they do to him after all the hate preaching he has been doing.
		
Click to expand...

Because of our belief in certain Human Rights - as specified in the European Convention on Human Rights! 

And for its applicability to both ourselves and to our fellow humans. 

And for the Rule of Law over mob rule!


----------



## stevie_r (Jul 12, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			Because of our belief in certain Human Rights - as specified in the European Convention on Human Rights! 

And for its applicability to both ourselves and to our fellow humans. 

And for the Rule of Law over mob rule!
		
Click to expand...

Ever get the feeling you are banging your head against a brick wall?


----------



## In_The_Rough (Jul 12, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			Because of our belief in certain Human Rights - as specified in the European Convention on Human Rights! 

And for its applicability to both ourselves and to our fellow humans. 

And for the Rule of Law over mob rule!
		
Click to expand...

So you would have been bothered what happened to him once we had kicked him out after all the hate he has spouted over the years?


----------



## stevie_r (Jul 12, 2013)

In_The_Rough said:



			So you would have been bothered what happened to him once we had kicked him out after all the hate he has spouted over the years?
		
Click to expand...

Why are you so focused on one particular individual issue?


----------



## In_The_Rough (Jul 12, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			Why are you so focused on one particular individual issue?
		
Click to expand...

Can focus on others if you like but he is the best example to use. This can also apply to all the other names I have mentioned such as Moore, Brady, Neilsen, Bridger, West etc again provided they are released back into the community I couldn't care less what happens to them.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 12, 2013)

In_The_Rough said:



			So you would have been bothered what happened to him once we had kicked him out after all the hate he has spouted over the years?
		
Click to expand...

I'd venture to suggest you wouldn't have been, nor are. 

I've certainly followed what has happened to him since he has been deported. Not necessarily out of concern for his health and welfare though.

Again, there's plenty of evidence that simply getting rid of and 'enemy of state' can end up being counter-productive! I don't believe that will be the case here, though it's still possible!



stevie_r said:



			Why are you so focused on one particular individual issue?
		
Click to expand...

It's these boundary cases that truly test the commitments of both governments and individuals. And it's only these cases where the ECtHR really needs to get involved.

I think also that ITR missed a (rather important) 'not' out of his reply to the query. I think he meant '... not released ...'


----------



## In_The_Rough (Jul 12, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			I'd venture to suggest you wouldn't have been, nor are. 

I've certainly followed what has happened to him since he has been deported. Not necessarily out of concern for his health and welfare though.

Again, there's plenty of evidence that simply getting rid of and 'enemy of state' can end up being counter-productive! I don't believe that will be the case here, though it's still possible!
		
Click to expand...

Correct could not give two hoots what happens regarding his health and welfare. Finally we agree on something that it can be counter-productive but if they are being extradited to face charges then great. However we certainly should not keep them here paying them all sorts of handouts and benefits when they are preaching hate and trying to whip others up into a frenzy.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 12, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			That, the way they were directed by the judge and crucial forensic evidence that wasn't presented.

How on earth can you accept a system that determines guilt, issues the death penalty but isn't perfect?
		
Click to expand...

What was this forensic evidence?   Juries are always given a summing up by the Judge, they are not directed unless the trial fails for some reason.

I have no choice other than accept it, it was the law of the day.   Nothing is perfect IMO, if you have a better way of deciding guilt then please tell me.


----------



## Sweep (Jul 12, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			Covered in Post 63.

The Old Testament vengeance approach has morphed *towards* New Testament atonement and rehabilitation if not forgiveness. Exceptional cases may exist, but there are still certain requirements/obligations. !
		
Click to expand...

Where was it covered in post 63? Where did I mention vengeance? I suppose in your world a person stops being human at the point they are murdered? Bamber has been tried and sentenced by a British court that in all aspects of common sense should have ultimate jurisdiction in Britain. He has had at least one appeal and his sentence stood. Common sense tells us he should not be free to roam in society. For the protection of YOU and me.
We have forgotten why laws exist. They are there to ensure we all live and behave within socially acceptable boundaries ie not murdering and raping each other. The first point of law should be to protect the innocent (those that obey the law) or in this case the memory of the victims. By pandering continually to the guilty you are, in fact undermining the law. Sentencing is all about punishment and deterent. In this case a whole life sentence is the maximum deterent we can give. The " let's see when we can let him out, he's a nice boy really, I am sure he never meant to kill his entire family" brigade are undermining the deterent and are doing our legal system and the ability of the authorities to protect the innocent a great disservice.


----------



## stevie_r (Jul 12, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			I have no choice other than accept it, it was the law of the day.   Nothing is perfect IMO, if you have a better way of deciding guilt then please tell me.
		
Click to expand...

I attach no blame to the jury what so ever, I don't see a better way of deciding guilt.  

The point I am trying to make is that blind faith in a Government, who are frequently caught out, is ridiculous.  The belief that we don't need to be signatories to the ECHR or have the HRA because we are British and always play by the rules is absolutely laughable.


----------



## Sweep (Jul 12, 2013)

sev112 said:



			I like Human Rights
Am not so sure on the Human Rights act
I think we would have all those good things we have in UK even without it
Personally I think if you commit a crime of certain severity you must lose certain rights, and you must not come out better off than the victims
Easy to say I suppose , less hard to legislate
		
Click to expand...

Is the right answer


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 12, 2013)

In_The_Rough said:



			.... *preaching hate and trying to whip others up into a frenzy.*

Click to expand...

Ah yes. That's the role of certain Newspaper isn't it!


----------



## Sweep (Jul 12, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			Ah yes. That's the role of certain Newspaper isn't it!
		
Click to expand...

This may be controversial, but I would rather have the "certain newspaper" (Daily Mail) than Abu Qatada


----------



## stevie_r (Jul 12, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			What was this forensic evidence?   Juries are always given a summing up by the Judge, they are not directed unless the trial fails for some reason.

I have no choice other than accept it, it was the law of the day.   Nothing is perfect IMO, if you have a better way of deciding guilt then please tell me.
		
Click to expand...

Get hold of a book called 'To encourage the others' by David Yallop,  which, amongst other points, raises the issue that the pathologist declared that the police officer had been killed by a weapon of between .32 and .38 in calibre fired from a range of 6 - 9 feet, Craig was around 40 feet away and armed with a .455 calibre revolver.

The following points were the basis of his pardon:

Lord Goddard had not made it clear to the jury that the prosecution were required to prove beyond all doubt that Bentley knew Craig was armed with the pistol.  He didn't and therefore 'joint enterprise' could not truly be proven.

Lord Goddard failed to raise the issue of withdrawing from joint enterprise.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, decreed that Lord Goddard had misdirected the jury and had placed on them undue pressure to convict.

The taped confession of Bentley has since been found by linguistic experts to have been heavily edited by the police.

Bentley was pardoned in 1993 and the conviction quashed in 1998 - sadly all a bit too late.


----------



## Sweep (Jul 12, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			Because of our belief in certain Human Rights - as specified in the European Convention on Human Rights! 

And for its applicability to both ourselves and to our fellow humans. 

And for the Rule of Law over mob rule!
		
Click to expand...

That's the point. I don't think we do believe in human rights as specified in the ECHR. We just believe in human rights. We didn't have mob rule before we signed up for it, which all EU member states had to. Would we have signed up otherwise? Certainly not in hindsight.
The ECHR is proving to be a millstone around our necks and is actually obstructing justice is some cases.
The British people are quite capable of making their own laws and protecting the rights of humans. We are a civilised society. We don't need others to show us the right way. We should free ourselves of this nonsense as a matter of urgency.


----------



## Sweep (Jul 12, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			Ever get the feeling you are banging your head against a brick wall?
		
Click to expand...

Yes


----------



## In_The_Rough (Jul 12, 2013)

Sweep said:



			This may be controversial, but I would rather have the "certain newspaper" (Daily Mail) than Abu Qatada
		
Click to expand...

:rofl: I know it is unreal isn't it.It was not the Daily Mail I read either despite what Foxholer thinks. In fact it was my own take on it when I saw him on the news preaching in the streets with a load of his followers


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 12, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			Get hold of a book called 'To encourage the others' by David Yallop,  which, amongst other points, raises the issue that the pathologist declared that the police officer had been killed by a weapon of between .32 and .38 in calibre fired from a range of 6 - 9 feet, Craig was around 40 feet away and armed with a .455 calibre revolver.

The following points were the basis of his pardon:

Lord Goddard had not made it clear to the jury that the prosecution were required to prove beyond all doubt that Bentley knew Craig was armed with the pistol.  He didn't and therefore 'joint enterprise' could not truly be proven.

Lord Goddard failed to raise the issue of withdrawing from joint enterprise.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, decreed that Lord Goddard had misdirected the jury and had placed on them undue pressure to convict.

The taped confession of Bentley has since been found by linguistic experts to have been heavily edited by the police.

Bentley was pardoned in 1993 and the conviction quashed in 1998 - sadly all a bit too late.
		
Click to expand...

I repeat.  The system was and is not infallible but it's all we have.    I ask you again: do you know of a better system?

They used to hang draw and quarter people in the middle ages, burn people at the stake.  We dont do that now but cant turn back the clock to change what has gone before.   I didn't actually say that I supported the death penalty, I have only made the point that trial by jury is the best and fairest system we  have available, even if it gets it wrong sometimes.

Getting back to your information on the calibre of the bullet that killed the Policeman.   Is someone suggesting that someone else shot him?


----------



## stevie_r (Jul 12, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			Getting back to your information on the calibre of the bullet that killed the Policeman.   Is someone suggesting that someone else shot him?
		
Click to expand...

The standard police issue revolver at the time (when issued) was the .32 Webley.  A .32 case was found on the roof but wasn't presented as evidence at the trial.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 12, 2013)

Sweep said:



			That's the point. I don't think we do believe in human rights as specified in the ECHR. We just believe in human rights. We didn't have mob rule before we signed up for it, which all EU member states had to. Would we have signed up otherwise? Certainly not in hindsight.
The ECHR is proving to be a millstone around our necks and is actually obstructing justice is some cases.
The British people are quite capable of making their own laws and protecting the rights of humans. We are a civilised society. We don't need others to show us the right way. We should free ourselves of this nonsense as a matter of urgency.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed, quite a good point. Or at least there's some selective beliefs or variable boundaries applied. That's not actually unreasonable though - and it's the role of the ECtHR to provide consistency by their (binding) rulings.

Once again though, the impression is that the ECtHR is part of the EU. It's not! It predates the EU by 40 years or more! And the Convention that it rules upon was implemented some 4 or 5 years earlier again!

Adherence to the Convention is an important metric of how capable 'The British people' really are of making their own laws and protecting the rights of humans. Independent review against a set of criteria - by the ECtHR against the Convention - has found that there are instances where that is not the case!

Possibly worth adding that I'm pretty certain that Abu Qatada wasn't/isn't a believer in the rights as stated in the Convention. I don't think Hitler, Stalin and a few others, in recent history, did either! Notice a pattern?


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Jul 12, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			I have only made the point that trial by jury is the best and fairest system we  have available, even if it gets it wrong sometimes.
		
Click to expand...

But surely if you accept that they get it wrong, then you accept that reviews further down the line are necessary. This, I believe, is what the furore is currently all about? Unless I'm reading it wrong, posters such as ITR are saying that some prisoners don't deserve reviews, which implies that the current method of deciding guilt is completely infallible?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 12, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			Because of our belief in certain Human Rights - as specified in the European Convention on Human Rights! 

And for its applicability to both ourselves and to our fellow humans. 

And for the Rule of Law over mob rule!
		
Click to expand...

And today in a timely manner we have the case of the woman wrongly imprisoned for killing her four month old son that brings together a number of human rights issues being discussed here.   Her claim for compensation was turned down by the UK courts - and her appeal to the ECHR was turned down.  Now what do those who are anti the ECHR think about this?  You might well think that she had a case for compensation and that UK justice made the wrong decision.  But where would she have gone seeking justice if we decided that we didn't want anything to do with the ECHR.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-23282695


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 12, 2013)

I thought I'd posted about that one earlier, but may not have.

Handy coincidence!

A 'victory' for the Government in this one I believe.

Certainly creates a clear precedent though! What it does for the 'quality of evidence' I'm not sure.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 12, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			I thought I'd posted about that one earlier, but may not have.

Handy coincidence!

A 'victory' for the Government in this one I believe.

Certainly creates a clear precedent though! What it does for the 'quality of evidence' I'm not sure.
		
Click to expand...

You may well have - had a look but didn't see it.  So the government will be applauding the ECHR for backing up the decision of the UK justiciary - will they? - I'm not holding my breath.  Or will they *condemn *the ECHR for NOT overruling the decision of the UK judiciary.  I suspect that we won't hear or read in the RW press that much more about this case - when ECHR upholds the decision of the UK courts.


----------



## Sweep (Jul 12, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			Indeed, quite a good point. Or at least there's some selective beliefs or variable boundaries applied. That's not actually unreasonable though - and it's the role of the ECtHR to provide consistency by their (binding) rulings.

Once again though, the impression is that the ECtHR is part of the EU. It's not! It predates the EU by 40 years or more! And the Convention that it rules upon was implemented some 4 or 5 years earlier again!

Adherence to the Convention is an important metric of how capable 'The British people' really are of making their own laws and protecting the rights of humans. Independent review against a set of criteria - by the ECtHR against the Convention - has found that there are instances where that is not the case!

Possibly worth adding that I'm pretty certain that Abu Qatada wasn't/isn't a believer in the rights as stated in the Convention. I don't think Hitler, Stalin and a few others, in recent history, did either! Notice a pattern?
		
Click to expand...

No, the ECHR may not be part of the EU, but all member states had to sign up to it. That makes it an EU issue and to disassociate ourselves from the ECHR may mean we have to leave the EU or renegotiate.
I really don't think we have to prove ourselves to anyone. As previously pointed out, no system is perfect and you can certainly include the ECHR in that! However, Britain gets it right far more than most and certainly more than the ECHR. We are a tolerant nation and our courts should decide matters based on the beliefs of OUR nations people. Not people from other countries who are very often not affected by the judgements they make. This makes the ECHR another example of undemocratically elected officials usurping properly elected people. Remember, one of the main purposes of Parliament is to make and amend the laws of the land. It is wrong to ask us to elect our representatives and not have those representatives make the final decisions.


----------



## Sweep (Jul 12, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			And today in a timely manner we have the case of the woman wrongly imprisoned for killing her four month old son that brings together a number of human rights issues being discussed here.   Her claim for compensation was turned down by the UK courts - and her appeal to the ECHR was turned down.  Now what do those who are anti the ECHR think about this?  You might well think that she had a case for compensation and that UK justice made the wrong decision.  But where would she have gone seeking justice if we decided that we didn't want anything to do with the ECHR.
		
Click to expand...

Your post seems to imply that you are surprised that the ECHR got it right for once. Or are you surprised that the UK courts got it right? Or just that everyone agreed?
In this case if we didn't have anything to do with the ECHR, she wouldn't have had a higher place of appeal. And the British court ruling would have applied. Just like it does now. The end result is the same, it would have just cost us a lot less. Just another fine example of why we should dump the ECHR in my opinion.


----------



## Sweep (Jul 12, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			Possibly worth adding that I'm pretty certain that Abu Qatada wasn't/isn't a believer in the rights as stated in the Convention. I don't think Hitler, Stalin and a few others, in recent history, did either! Notice a pattern?
		
Click to expand...

Yes. They are / were enemies of the British state. Millions of our people have died fighting wars against them to prevent them holding power over us and others across the world. WE are the people who helped protect the world from these examples of the worst of mankind. We don't need the ECHR or anyone else for that matter to tell us right from wrong. WE, the British people have been the protectors of human rights the world over for centuries.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 12, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			You may well have - had a look but didn't see it.  So the government will be applauding the ECHR for backing up the decision of the UK justiciary - will they? - I'm not holding my breath.  Or will they *condemn *the ECHR for NOT overruling the decision of the UK judiciary.  I suspect that we won't hear or read in the RW press that much more about this case - when ECHR upholds the decision of the UK courts.
		
Click to expand...

I reckon the RW spin on it, if it's not buried, will be along the lines of 'UK Courts Decision Got it Right - No Need for ECtHR!'!

That way the illusion of incompetence - the exact opposite of what I believe is the case - can be maintained! 

And it's not just the RW-ers that are anti-ECtHR btw. It's any Government that has its authority to create Laws, for its own purposes, challenged. 

Scarily, while searching for examples, I found this article and actually agree with quite a lot of it! http://www.labour.org.uk/role-for-government-in-seeking-to-ensure-liberty,2013-07-08


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Jul 12, 2013)

Sweep said:



			WE, the British people have been the protectors of human rights the world over for centuries.
		
Click to expand...

You're kidding right? Please tell me that is a tongue in cheek comment? Are you gloriously ignoring all of our past history, and focusing on the last 100 years? Which even then, are considered by some to be a little suspect with regards to the human rights aspect......

We have just a bad record as any, if not worse than many, for the way WE, the British people, have treated other countries.

EDIT - Wow, a bit of research, and even the last 100 years look decidedly dodgy. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/23/british-empire-crimes-ignore-atrocities

But hey, we are the moral guardians, right?


----------



## forefortheday (Jul 12, 2013)

Sweep said:



			Yes. They are / were enemies of the British state. Millions of our people have died fighting wars against them to prevent them holding power over us and others across the world. WE are the people who helped protect the world from these examples of the worst of mankind. We don't need the ECHR or anyone else for that matter to tell us right from wrong. WE, the British people have been the protectors of human rights the world over for centuries.
		
Click to expand...

Try telling that to the people of India,Kenya etc etc.

Protecting human rights for centuries?? We were using concentration camps before Hitler!


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 12, 2013)

Sweep said:



			Yes. They are / were enemies of the British state. Millions of our people have died fighting wars against them to prevent them holding power over us and others across the world. WE are the people who helped protect the world from these examples of the worst of mankind. We don't need the ECHR or anyone else for that matter to tell us right from wrong. *WE, the British people have been the protectors of human rights the world over for centuries*.
		
Click to expand...

I think there's quite a few Afro-Americans descended from victims of that British 'protection'! Likewise, the rest of Africa, The Middle and Far East and the Indian sub-continent were beneficiaries of such 'protection' otherwise known as Imperialism!

Britain's motives, in the last few Centuries, can really be summarised by an obsession to protect its own interests in Global Trade - and little else imo!

So if you add 'when it has suited us' to the bold bit, I might agree

Britain invented the Concentration Camp. The Nazis, in a classic stereotype, merely made it efficient!

Nice spin though!


----------



## stevie_r (Jul 12, 2013)

Sweep said:



			Yes. They are / were enemies of the British state. Millions of our people have died fighting wars against them to prevent them holding power over us and others across the world. WE are the people who helped protect the world from these examples of the worst of mankind. We don't need the ECHR or anyone else for that matter to tell us right from wrong. *WE, the British people have been the protectors of human rights the world over for centuries*.
		
Click to expand...

You are absolutely barking mad, howling at the moon, mad


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Jul 12, 2013)

I think we can officially class Sweeps last sentence as "refuted by many"


----------



## FairwayDodger (Jul 12, 2013)

Sweep said:



			Yes. *They are / were enemies of the British state*. Millions of our people have died fighting wars against them to prevent them holding power over us and others across the world. WE are the people who helped protect the world from these examples of the worst of mankind. We don't need the ECHR or anyone else for that matter to tell us right from wrong. WE, the British people have been the protectors of human rights the world over for centuries.
		
Click to expand...

Hmmm.... pretty sure Stalin was an ally.


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jul 12, 2013)

The British people protectors of human rights the world over for centuries.
You have to be joking

Just this last full century alone, think on..........South Africa, India and Pakistan, Australia, Uganda, Kenya, Egypt for starters.


----------



## Sweep (Jul 12, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			You are absolutely barking mad, howling at the moon, mad
		
Click to expand...

Errr, Hitler was German. Stalin was Russian and you want us to defer our belief in what is right and wrong to European Court of Human Rights? Listen, my father fought in Burma against the Japanese who were not at that time leading lights in the human rights lobby. Nobody thanked him for risking his life to save them and he never expected them to. Probably because his father before him fought the Germans in WW1 and nobody had thanked him. Millions of his fellow soldiers died doing the same, it was just that my dad was "lucky". So please, next time you are having a bad round of golf, think of that generation who weren't lucky enough to get to play golf, because many of them died for you and millions of others for your human rights. Please don't insult their memory by suggesting that everything Britain has done in the past was wrong. As I said before, we do at lot more right than most and certainly more than our European friends. It is you, the apologists for the world, who are barking mad. "Lets give up our sovereignty, because we can't handle all this responsibility". "Everybody else knows better than us". You need to grow some and quick. And you are right. Britain needs to start taking responsibilty for her own actions.


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Jul 12, 2013)

Sweep said:



			Please don't insult their memory by suggesting that everything Britain has done in the past was wrong.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone said this? Everyone just jumped on your high and mighty position that we are the global upholders of high moral standards, and have been for centuries. We were on the right side in the World Wars, and I for one am exceptionally grateful for all of the young men and women who made immeasurable sacrifices for that cause. We cannot forget though that there are just as many times that we have been on the wrong side, but unfortunately, we don't seem to learn too much about them in history classes....


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 12, 2013)

Sweep said:



			Your post seems to imply that you are surprised that the ECHR got it right for once. Or are you surprised that the UK courts got it right? Or just that everyone agreed?
In this case if we didn't have anything to do with the ECHR, she wouldn't have had a higher place of appeal. And the British court ruling would have applied. Just like it does now. The end result is the same, it would have just cost us a lot less. Just another fine example of why we should dump the ECHR in my opinion.
		
Click to expand...

Surely the point is that she *did *have somewhere to go.  After all the UK judiciary system got it wroing for her three years ago - why might they not get it wrong in respect of her compensation claim.  I think that if I'd spent three years in jail for something I didn't do then I'd not be too confident in them.


----------



## stevie_r (Jul 12, 2013)

Sweep said:



			Errr, Hitler was German. Stalin was Russian and you want us to defer our belief in what is right and wrong to European Court of Human Rights? Listen, my father fought in Burma against the Japanese who were not at that time leading lights in the human rights lobby. Nobody thanked him for risking his life to save them and he never expected them to. Probably because his father before him fought the Germans in WW1 and nobody had thanked him. Millions of his fellow soldiers died doing the same, it was just that my dad was "lucky". So please, next time you are having a bad round of golf, think of that generation who weren't lucky enough to get to play golf, because many of them died for you and millions of others for your human rights. Please don't insult their memory by suggesting that everything Britain has done in the past was wrong. As I said before, we do at lot more right than most and certainly more than our European friends. It is you, the apologists for the world, who are barking mad. "Lets give up our sovereignty, because we can't handle all this responsibility". "Everybody else knows better than us". You need to grow some and quick. And you are right. Britain needs to start taking responsibilty for her own actions.
		
Click to expand...

Don't preach at me mate.  Of the 22 years I spent in the Army  fully 5 of those were spent on operations or in harms way if you like.    

I have a wife who is 70% disabled as a result of service in war that Britain was involved in in 2003, Iraq, you might have heard of it, I think it was in the papers.  

That war showed our government up for what it is, was, and always has been.  The government deliberately misled the British public into why it was necessary to go to war; we went to war on a lie.  David Kelly anyone? Truth of the matter was that it was always going to happen and when we couldn't find enough of a reason we went anyway; primarily to suck up the the good old U S of A.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 12, 2013)

Sweep said:



			However, Britain gets it right far more than most and certainly more than the ECHR
		
Click to expand...

Sweeping statement - and made on what basis.



Sweep said:



			We are a tolerant nation and our courts should decide matters based on the beliefs of OUR nations people
		
Click to expand...

. 

Tolerant - maybe - maybe not as much as we were



Sweep said:



			This makes the ECHR another example of undemocratically elected officials usurping properly elected people.
		
Click to expand...

Don't remember voting for our judges




			Remember, one of the main purposes of Parliament is to make and amend the laws of the land. It is wrong to ask us to elect our representatives and not have those representatives make the final decisions.
		
Click to expand...

Oh I REALLY trust our governments to make law based upon strongly held and long standing principles that reflect those of the general public - not.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 12, 2013)

Sweep said:



			...Listen, my father fought in Burma against the Japanese who were not at that time leading lights in the human rights lobby. Nobody thanked him for risking his life to save them and he never expected them to. Please don't insult their memory by suggesting that everything Britain has done in the past was wrong. As I said before, we do at lot more right than most and certainly more than our European friends.
		
Click to expand...

I too had a Father and several Uncles who served in WWII. That sort of argument is only relevant in that the entire Council for Europe was established to avoid that sort of mayhem subsequent to WWII!

It's not a case of doing a better job. It's a case of guaranteeing the basic rights and having some judicial ruling method. The Convention and ECtHR seems to be the best way to me! Anything else is simply Xenophobic and would actually adopt the same articles anyway. There are certainly a large number of 'non-European' states that are signatories to the CofEurope therefore ECtHR rulings.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jul 12, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			I too had a Father and several Uncles who served in WWII. That sort of argument is only relevant in that the entire Council for Europe was established to avoid that sort of mayhem subsequent to WWII!

It's not a case of doing a better job. It's a case of guaranteeing the basic rights and having some judicial ruling method. The Convention and ECtHR seems to be the best way to me! Anything else is simply Xenophobic and would actually adopt the same articles anyway. There are certainly a large number of 'non-European' states that are signatories to the CofEurope therefore ECtHR rulings.
		
Click to expand...

Countries - even the whiter than white UK - can make laws that may suit the party in government at the time and that may reflect the specific circumstances of the time.  That does not necessarily make good law and surely it is good to have an independent body - like an ombudsman - to have a second look at judgements from a broader perspective.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 12, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Countries - even the whiter than white UK - can make laws that may suit the party in government at the time and that may reflect the specific circumstances of the time.  That does not necessarily make good law and surely it is good to have an independent body - like an ombudsman - to have a second look at judgements from a broader perspective.
		
Click to expand...

True. Would have been a much shorter, and possibly less interesting, thread if this had bee posted on Page 1!

And I'd amend 'good to have' to 'essential to have'!


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 12, 2013)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Countries - even the whiter than white UK - can make laws that may suit the party in government at the time and that may reflect the specific circumstances of the time.  That does not necessarily make good law and surely it is good to have an independent body - like an ombudsman - to have a second look at judgements from a broader perspective.
		
Click to expand...

That why we have the House of Lords.    You really seem ill at ease with the UK, ever considered moving to somewhere where they have people in Government, or will that be when we get Labour back to continue with the great job they were doing.


----------



## stevie_r (Jul 12, 2013)

Ostriches and the ill informed in abundance.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 12, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			Ostriches and the ill informed in abundance.
		
Click to expand...

A crude comment that does you no credit.   Snelly was correct in his comments on how some of you guys despise anyone who has a contrary opinion to your left wing anti-establishment cynicism.    Will you be happy with your lot if the two EDs come to power and wash away all the tears from our eyes?


----------



## stevie_r (Jul 12, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			A crude comment that does you no credit.   Snelly was correct in his comments on how some of you guys despise anyone who has a contrary opinion to your left wing anti-establishment cynicism.    Will you be happy with your lot if the two EDs come to power and wash away all the tears from our eyes?
		
Click to expand...

What I find rather sad is your immovable stance that Britain has always been the champion of the oppressed and promoter of human rights around the world.  Our history is littered with evidence that it has been neither, both in terms of foreign nations and our own populace.

We were a major colonial power, I don't decry that, it was necessary.  Underdeveloped nation has abundant natural resources that they didn't need or indeed know how to utilise.  We go and take them by force of arms.  Every European power did it.  To believe that we were doing great works by doing this is laughable.

Tell me, why did we have a lease on Hong Kong? If you don't know then google it.

I don't denigrate the efforts of any soldier, we go where the politicians decide; so tell me, why do you believe your father was in Burma?

You seem to think, as you have already stated, that Britain has always a leader in the field of human rights.  Would you like to discuss, only going back a couple of centuries, our treatment of the mentally ill?  Poor finding themselves in debt?  Not that long ago in the last century young unmarried mothers having their children taken from them?  Many of these children forcibly removed to the colonies.  Us being the country most overtly monitored by it's own government of any country in the Western World.

We have a government (parties being irrelevant in this case) who are happy to commit us to pointless wars, In once case the cause of which was a blatant lie.  We slunk away from Iraq with our tails between our legs having achieved nothing, well apart from supporting Dubyah in getting one over on his dad.  We will slink away from Afghanistan having achieved the same result.

Many of those who fought in World War 2 fought for the very survival of our nation and to free those countries invaded and subdued by a lunatic, very commendable.  Many men in World War 2 fought to maintain a hold over some of our colonies and their natural resources; not fighting for freedom but to maintain our position of imperialism, commendable but a lit bit less commendable.  Can you see the difference and a little bit of irony there?

So, in their dotage, the casualties (both physical and mental) of our two most recent pointless fiascos won't even really be draw on the fact that they were fighting for the liberties of their countrymen.  They include my wife, as already alluded to; and my nephew who at 23 had his lower leg shattered by a high velocity round in Helmand province - he will never regain anywhere near full functionality.  You can read about him if you wish, he is mentioned in the book 'Six months without Sundays - the Scots Guards in Afghanistan.

So, we have a government who is happy to embroil us in pointless but very expensive conflicts - you wouldn't think we were on our erchies financially.  Ministers who constantly prove that far too high a number of them are totally self-serving.  Our police force lurches from scandal to scandal (at the higher levels - not the average guy on the beat).  A legal system that while pretty good still beggars belief at times.  For example, convict (unsafely) a guy of murder, 8 years later admit you got it wrong and all he gets is sorry, no compensation, for the loss of 8 years liberty.

And yet, laughingly, we are a shining beacon of truth, liberty and an example to the rest of the world.  We have been for centuries, you said so.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 12, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			What I find rather sad is your immovable stance that Britain has always been the champion of the oppressed and promoter of human rights around the world.  Our history is littered with evidence that it has been neither, both in terms of foreign nations and our own populace.

We were a major colonial power, I don't decry that, it was necessary.  Underdeveloped nation has abundant natural resources that they didn't need or indeed know how to utilise.  We go and take them by force of arms.  Every European power did it.  To believe that we were doing great works by doing this is laughable.

Tell me, why did we have a lease on Hong Kong? If you don't know then google it.

I don't denigrate the efforts of any soldier, we go where the politicians decide; so tell me, why do you believe your father was in Burma?

You seem to think, as you have already stated, that Britain has always a leader in the field of human rights.  Would you like to discuss, only going back a couple of centuries, our treatment of the mentally ill?  Poor finding themselves in debt?  Not that long ago in the last century young unmarried mothers having their children taken from them?  Many of these children forcibly removed to the colonies.  Us being the country most overtly monitored by it's own government of any country in the Western World.

We have a government (parties being irrelevant in this case) who are happy to commit us to pointless wars, In once case the cause of which was a blatant lie.  We slunk away from Iraq with our tails between our legs having achieved nothing, well apart from supporting Dubyah in getting one over on his dad.  We will slink away from Afghanistan having achieved the same result.

Many of those who fought in World War 2 fought for the very survival of our nation and to free those countries invaded and subdued by a lunatic, very commendable.  Many men in World War 2 fought to maintain a hold over some of our colonies and their natural resources; not fighting for freedom but to maintain our position of imperialism, commendable but a lit bit less commendable.  Can you see the difference and a little bit of irony there?

So, in their dotage, the casualties (both physical and mental) of our two most recent pointless fiascos won't even really be draw on the fact that they were fighting for the liberties of their countrymen.  They include my wife, as already alluded to; and my nephew who at 23 had his lower leg shattered by a high velocity round in Helmand province - he will never regain anywhere near full functionality.  You can read about him if you wish, he is mentioned in the book 'Six months without Sundays - the Scots Guards in Afghanistan.

So, we have a government who is happy to embroil us in pointless but very expensive conflicts - you wouldn't think we were on our erchies financially.  Ministers who constantly prove that far too high a number of them are totally self-serving.  Our police force lurches from scandal to scandal (at the higher levels - not the average guy on the beat).  A legal system that while pretty good still beggars belief at times.  For example, convict (unsafely) a guy of murder, 8 years later admit you got it wrong and all he gets is sorry, no compensation, for the loss of 8 years liberty.

And yet, laughingly, we are a shining beacon of truth, liberty and an example to the rest of the world.  We have been for centuries, you said so.
		
Click to expand...

Did I really say all those things!  Funny how I cant remember saying them or even find the posts.   I can remember making some comments on how I prefer our laws to be made and administered by our own country with the House of Lords being the ultimate court of appeal.


I think you have become confused with what I have posted, dont feel isolated in this though, a number of people have done the same recently.  It seems to have become a trend, especially with those who have a trait of believing anyone who holds anything but a left of centre view must be wrong in anything they say or think.   

It is absolutely pointless harping back to places in history and suggesting things like how the mentally ill were treated in Victorian times has some kind of relevance today.    I am glad you also mention the Iraq war and almost said it was Tony Blair that was responsible but seemed to hold back on that bit as it's better to sound as if the Torys have been responsible for all things bad.

Please look a little to yourself and your own prejudices before blindly accusing others.


----------



## Mungoscorner (Jul 12, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			Did I really say all those things!  Funny how I cant remember saying them or even find the posts.   I can remember making some comments on how I prefer our laws to be made and administered by our own country with the House of Lords being the ultimate court of appeal.


I think you have become confused with what I have posted, dont feel isolated in this though, a number of people have done the same recently.  It seems to have become a trend, especially with those who have a trait of believing anyone who holds anything but a left of centre view must be wrong in anything they say or think.   

It is absolutely pointless harping back to places in history and suggesting things like how the mentally ill were treated in Victorian times has some kind of relevance today.    I am glad you also mention the Iraq war and almost said it was Tony Blair that was responsible but seemed to hold back on that bit as it's better to sound as if the Torys have been responsible for all things bad.

Please look a little to yourself and your own prejudices before blindly accusing others.
		
Click to expand...

Do you ever stop ?


----------



## stevie_r (Jul 12, 2013)

SocketRocket said:



			Did I really say all those things!  Funny how I cant remember saying them or even find the posts.   I can remember making some comments on how I prefer our laws to be made and administered by our own country with the House of Lords being the ultimate court of appeal.


I think you have become confused with what I have posted, dont feel isolated in this though, a number of people have done the same recently.  It seems to have become a trend, especially with those who have a trait of believing anyone who holds anything but a left of centre view must be wrong in anything they say or think.   

It is absolutely pointless harping back to places in history and suggesting things like how the mentally ill were treated in Victorian times has some kind of relevance today.    I am glad you also mention the Iraq war and almost said it was Tony Blair that was responsible but seemed to hold back on that bit as it's better to sound as if the Torys have been responsible for all things bad.

Please look a little to yourself and your own prejudices before blindly accusing others.
		
Click to expand...

Then I owe you an apology, I had you down as one of those that believed Britain was, and had always been, a bastion of fairness and a shining example of governance; I hadn't actually gone back through all the posts to verify that and had clearly attributed some of the posts I had read to you, wrongly - again for which I apologise.

I am certainly not left wing, nor am I around the middle, I am definitely right of centre. Personally I feel Blair is a war criminal and should be tried, equally though I feel the current alliance to be complicit in continuing our presence in the utterly pointless war that is Afghanistan. This brings me back to my point that I don't trust HMG, regardless of who is living in No 10.  Does the House of Lords provide an effective check and balance to the government - I don't believe it does.

I fully believe that the ECHR and the HRA are important - regardless of how often our government disregards them.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 12, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			Then I owe you an apology, I had you down as one of those that believed Britain was, and had always been, a bastion of fairness and a shining example of governance; I hadn't actually gone back through all the posts to verify that and had clearly attributed some of the posts I had read to you, wrongly - again for which I apologise.

I am certainly not left wing, nor am I around the middle, I am definitely right of centre. Personally I feel Blair is a war criminal and should be tried, equally though I feel the current alliance to be complicit in continuing our presence in the utterly pointless war that is Afghanistan. This brings me back to my point that I don't trust HMG, regardless of who is living in No 10.  Does the House of Lords provide an effective check and balance to the government - I don't believe it does.

I fully believe that the ECHR and the HRA are important - regardless of how often our government disregards them.
		
Click to expand...

Thank you for checking that.  OK, we may differ in opinion on how our justice system is regulated but Hey Ho, vive la difference.


----------



## SocketRocket (Jul 12, 2013)

Mungoscorner said:



			Do you ever stop ?
		
Click to expand...

Stop what exactly.  Joining in the debate and defending my considered point of view.    So please inform me of what I need to 'Stop' , or are you another that fails to actually read what I say and create your own perceived prejudiced blinkered view.  

Please, I am interested to hear the details.


----------



## Sweep (Jul 13, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			Don't preach at me mate.  Of the 22 years I spent in the Army  fully 5 of those were spent on operations or in harms way if you like.    

I have a wife who is 70% disabled as a result of service in war that Britain was involved in in 2003, Iraq, you might have heard of it, I think it was in the papers.  

That war showed our government up for what it is, was, and always has been.  The government deliberately misled the British public into why it was necessary to go to war; we went to war on a lie.  David Kelly anyone? Truth of the matter was that it was always going to happen and when we couldn't find enough of a reason we went anyway; primarily to suck up the the good old U S of A.
		
Click to expand...

I am not preaching to anyone. I agree about the war in Iraq. Tony Blair was the first prime minister in history to lie to parliament and the country and be re elected. However, I think you will find that most who are against Britains involvement with the ECHR didn't vote for Mr. Blair. I never said we were perfect. I said we got it right more than most. It should be remembered that it wasn't only the Americans and the British in Iraq. There was a coalition of countries who all got it wrong too. It must be true. I read it in those papers you mention. The fact that Blair took us to war unprovoked was utterly disgraceful IMO, though it has to be said, Saddam was no champion of human rights either.
You cannot simply act as an apologist for Britains record without firstly examining the record of the others who you think are fit to tell us how to do things. Nor can you just dismiss the good things we have done. To conveniently forget the freedom we helped secure for millions in the world wars is simply ridiculous. Many on here seem very capable of listing where we went wrong with absolutely no reference to the good we have done. Maybe my faith in the British is misplaced. You may say I am nieve. But if you really think foreign powers are better placed to tell us what to do, I would suggest you are a lot more nieve than me.
Has it occurred to you that this may go the other way? What if the ECHR becomes say less forthright in its work. Not possible? Well, in the last 75 years, which lets face it is the relevent period here, three of the major European countries have had fascist governments. A number have flirted with communism and one new member of the EU was embroiled in a bitter war 20 years ago. Italy has had something like 50+ goverments since 1945. Britain in contrast has had none of these problems. It has had stable, moderate governments and has spent much of its time helping to sort out problems on the continent. Within the last 75 years, if you disagreed with the government in some European countries, you were executed. So much for human rights. When it comes to protecting mine, I'll stick with Britain, thanks.


----------



## stevie_r (Jul 13, 2013)

Sweep said:



			I am not preaching to anyone. I agree about the war in Iraq. Tony Blair was the first prime minister in history to lie to parliament and the country and be re elected. However, I think you will find that most who are against Britains involvement with the ECHR didn't vote for Mr. Blair. I never said we were perfect. I said we got it right more than most. It should be remembered that it wasn't only the Americans and the British in Iraq. There was a coalition of countries who all got it wrong too. It must be true. I read it in those papers you mention. The fact that Blair took us to war unprovoked was utterly disgraceful IMO, though it has to be said, Saddam was no champion of human rights either.
You cannot simply act as an apologist for Britains record without firstly examining the record of the others who you think are fit to tell us how to do things. Nor can you just dismiss the good things we have done. To conveniently forget the freedom we helped secure for millions in the world wars is simply ridiculous. Many on here seem very capable of listing where we went wrong with absolutely no reference to the good we have done. Maybe my faith in the British is misplaced. You may say I am nieve. But if you really think foreign powers are better placed to tell us what to do, I would suggest you are a lot more nieve than me.
Has it occurred to you that this may go the other way? What if the ECHR becomes say less forthright in its work. Not possible? Well, in the last 75 years, which lets face it is the relevent period here, three of the major European countries have had fascist governments. A number have flirted with communism and one new member of the EU was embroiled in a bitter war 20 years ago. Italy has had something like 50+ goverments since 1945. Britain in contrast has had none of these problems. It has had stable, moderate governments and has spent much of its time helping to sort out problems on the continent. Within the last 75 years, if you disagreed with the government in some European countries, you were executed. So much for human rights. When it comes to protecting mine, I'll stick with Britain, thanks.
		
Click to expand...

List the countries that invaded Iraq in 2003, I'll do it for you, the good Old US, us, Poland and and some Kurds.  Unfortunately the marsh arabs didn't want to play as we shafted them the first time.  We didn't have the support of the other arab nations that we did in the Gulf war.

Could you list the foreign powers that are dictating what we should do in regards to Human Rights? I don't think there are any.  Can you please try to grasp the concept that we were major players in the inception of what became the ECHR, it isn't a dictate from the EU.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 13, 2013)

Sweep.

Your argument is self-destructive.

If Britain truly applied the Articles of the ECofHR properly, there would never be aruling that went against the UK )nd other) Governments.

As that obviously isn't the case, there is also obviously a need for an organisation to keep Governments in check! 

Whatever Government that happens to be in power, their main priority is to continue to be 'in power'. That selfish desire fundamentally opposes the principles of freedom enshrined in the Convention, so again, there needs to be a 'checks and balances' process tht is not controlled by the Government. 

The argument about 'faceless Civil servants' is spurious. That applies, or at least should, to all Civil servants from the general public's point of view. The reason Governments object is that tend to have control over their own, while an independent organisation is truly that - independent. That is a good, in fact essential, thing imo! As the folk making these rulings are actually rather highly qualified members of the Judiciary, I have rather more faith in their integrity than in the short term aims of out Political Masters.



stevie_r said:



			List the countries that invaded Iraq in 2003, I'll do it for you, the good Old US, us, Poland and and some Kurds.  Unfortunately the marsh arabs didn't want to play as we shafted them the first time.  We didn't have the support of the other arab nations that we did in the Gulf war.

Could you list the foreign powers that are dictating what we should do in regards to Human Rights? I don't think there are any.  Can you please try to grasp the concept that we were major players in the inception of what became the ECHR, it isn't a dictate from the EU.
		
Click to expand...

I think there was quite a force of Australians in the invasion too.

Eventually the relationships between the orgs might get through!


----------



## Sweep (Jul 13, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			List the countries that invaded Iraq in 2003, I'll do it for you, the good Old US, us, Poland and and some Kurds.  Unfortunately the marsh arabs didn't want to play as we shafted them the first time.  We didn't have the support of the other arab nations that we did in the Gulf war.

Could you list the foreign powers that are dictating what we should do in regards to Human Rights? I don't think there are any.  Can you please try to grasp the concept that we were major players in the inception of what became the ECHR, it isn't a dictate from the EU.
		
Click to expand...

I could list all the countries that deployed troops to Iraq. Google is a wonderful thing. Sadly it would take up too much space. There were 40. No, I can't list the foreign judges that are dictating to us over human rights, which worries me even more. I don't know who they are. Surely you do? After all, you are so keen on them. And I do grasp that is isn't a dictate from the EU. Though as a member of the EU you have to sign up to the ECHR so it may as well be. Now, can you grasp the idea that the British people should decide on British laws and the British legal system? You see, I get the feeling that if we tried to interfere with the legal system of other countries, you'd be the first to complain.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 13, 2013)

Sweep said:



			I could list all the countries that deployed troops to Iraq. Google is a wonderful thing. Sadly it would take up too much space. There were 40. No, I can't list the foreign judges that are dictating to us over human rights, which worries me even more. I don't know who they are. Surely you do? After all, you are so keen on them. And I do grasp that is isn't a dictate from the EU. Though as a member of the EU you have to sign up to the ECHR so it may as well be. Now, can you grasp the idea that the British people should decide on British laws and the British legal system? You see, I get the feeling that if we tried to interfere with the legal system of other countries, you'd be the first to complain.
		
Click to expand...

The question stated 'invaded' and there certainly wasn't 40 of them!

And you are simply wrong on the need to sign up to the ECtHR as a member of the EU. Th EU itself is not a member of the Council of Europe, so deems rulings of ECtHR to not apply to it! Though all EU Member States are also signatories of the Council of Europe, so within ECtHR jurisdiction. Use Google to find the relationships and the 'not to be confused with's!


----------



## Sweep (Jul 13, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			The question stated 'invaded' and there certainly wasn't 40 of them!

And you are simply wrong on the need to sign up to the ECtHR as a member of the EU. Th EU itself is not a member of the Council of Europe, so deems rulings of ECtHR to not apply to it! Though all EU Member States are also signatories of the Council of Europe, so within ECtHR jurisdiction. Use Google to find the relationships and the 'not to be confused with's!
		
Click to expand...

He was responding to my point about _coalition _forces. He simply altered the point to suit his argument. A bit like forgetting two world wars. There were 40 nations who all made the same mistake as Britain (IMO) in Iraq. I don't know where the relevance if the EU / ECHR relationship is in this matter, apart from one wants to make our laws and the other wants to make our rulings.


----------



## Sweep (Jul 13, 2013)

Foxholer, I refer you to my previous post where I said that Britain probably doesn't see human rights in the same way as the ECHR. We still uphold human rights. Maybe that's why we sometimes fall foul of the ECHR. I don't see why that makes my argument self destructive.
In the end, you and others are happy to devolve ultimate control of the British legal system ( which when I was at school I was taught was the envy of the world) to a foreign court. I am not. Simples


----------



## Sweep (Jul 13, 2013)

Just so that "eventually the relationship between the orgs might get through" the EU is bound to adopt the ECHR through the Lisbon Treaty and I think this will happen soon if it hasn't already.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 13, 2013)

Sweep said:



			Foxholer, I refer you to my previous post where I said that Britain probably doesn't see human rights in the same way as the ECHR. We still uphold human rights. Maybe that's why we sometimes fall foul of the ECHR. I don't see why that makes my argument self destructive.
In the end, you and others are happy to devolve ultimate control of the British legal system ( which when I was at school I was taught was the envy of the world) to a foreign court. I am not. Simples
		
Click to expand...

Well, that's complete tosh imo!

Firstly as a signatory to, and indeed instigator of, The Council of Europe - and it's body The ECtHR - it has demonstrated that it fundamentally does see human rights in the same way. The occasional detail and event might be in doubt, but judgement on those details and events that has always been the role of the ECtHR. It's only the visibility and immediacy of that that was clarified in 1998.

Ultimate control of the British Legal system is unaffected by the ECtHR or The Council of Europe! Rulings against the Government simply mean that the particular element of that breaches has to be amended. And it only applies to Human Rghts - which is the title of this thread!, You might find more support for the view that the EU and its Court - The European Court of Justice - overly affects UK Law.

As for being taught that the British Legal System is the envy of the world; that just demonstrates the power teachers have for government propaganda. That statement is certainly made in the US and other European countries. Are they all right? I believe there was also a parallel claim made about the NHS, but that opens a different can of worms! For me, it is the independence of the Judiciary from day to day government that makes the British Legal System such a good one. Of course, that's what I am advocating wrt the ECtHR!


----------



## Fish (Jul 13, 2013)

Oh my, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, some may say.

Like Steve, I have scars both personally and emotionally from losing some very close friends and comrades after being a political pawn for our lying government/s for many years being sent, no questions asked into conflict on many occasions and I have been to places where my government wouldn't even admit they'd sent me to train insurgents so please......don't believe what you read or Google, you'd be better informed watching a series of factual exploits of Postman Pat.


----------



## Sweep (Jul 13, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			Well, that's complete tosh imo!

Firstly as a signatory to, and indeed instigator of, The Council of Europe - and it's body The ECtHR - it has demonstrated that it fundamentally does see human rights in the same way. The occasional detail and event might be in doubt, but judgement on those details and events that has always been the role of the ECtHR. It's only the visibility and immediacy of that that was clarified in 1998.

Ultimate control of the British Legal system is unaffected by the ECtHR or The Council of Europe! Rulings against the Government simply mean that the particular element of that breaches has to be amended. And it only applies to Human Rghts - which is the title of this thread!, You might find more support for the view that the EU and its Court - The European Court of Justice - overly affects UK Law.

As for being taught that the British Legal System is the envy of the world; that just demonstrates the power teachers have for government propaganda. That statement is certainly made in the US and other European countries. Are they all right? I believe there was also a parallel claim made about the NHS, but that opens a different can of worms! For me, it is the independence of the Judiciary from day to day government that makes the British Legal System such a good one. Of course, that's what I am advocating wrt the ECtHR!
		
Click to expand...

Qatada? Full life sentences? seems to me the UK and ECHR see human rights in quite different ways. Otherwise we wouldn't be discussing this, would we? I seem to remember my teachers advocating the British legal system as the best in the world because of the way we used rulings to evolve the system. I may be wrong. It was a long time ago. Still, as you say, if teachers are just mouth pieces for government propaganda, maybe we should have a European body to oversee them too. After all, it seems we can't do anything good for ourselves. You are quite right about the European Court of Justice and that is what people are sick of. Others interfering in our affairs. As I said in a previous post, if we interfered in others affairs, I am sure you would be the first to complain.


----------



## Sweep (Jul 13, 2013)

Fish said:



			Oh my, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, some may say.

Like Steve, I have scars both personally and emotionally from losing some very close friends and comrades after being a political pawn for our lying government/s for many years being sent, no questions asked into conflict on many occasions and I have been to places where my government wouldn't even admit they'd sent me to train insurgents so please......don't believe what you read or Google, you'd be better informed watching a series of factual exploits of Postman Pat.
		
Click to expand...

Fair enough. You would know better than me. Of course, if its secret, how am I going to know? It seems I am just one of the mugs who works hard to pay for it all. Do other countries do this, or is it just Britain that is ****? Serious question.


----------



## stevie_r (Jul 13, 2013)

Sweep said:



			I could list all the countries that deployed troops to Iraq. Google is a wonderful thing. Sadly it would take up too much space. There were 40. No, I can't list the foreign judges that are dictating to us over human rights, which worries me even more. I don't know who they are. Surely you do? After all, you are so keen on them. And I do grasp that is isn't a dictate from the EU. Though as a member of the EU you have to sign up to the ECHR so it may as well be. Now, can you grasp the idea that the British people should decide on British laws and the British legal system? You see, I get the feeling that if we tried to interfere with the legal system of other countries, you'd be the first to complain.
		
Click to expand...

I referred to the countries that initially invaded Iraq in 2003 (and yes I somehow missed Australia from it), whereas you refer to the huge number of countries that became involved once the war was 'won'.


----------



## Fish (Jul 13, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			I referred to the countries that initially invaded Iraq in 2003 (and yes I somehow missed Australia from it), whereas you refer to the huge number of countries that became involved once the war was 'won'.
		
Click to expand...

Yes, there's a big difference in those that invaded, were deployed and those that became involved.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 13, 2013)

Sweep said:



			Qatada? Full life sentences? seems to me the UK and ECHR see human rights in quite different ways. Otherwise we wouldn't be discussing this, would we? I seem to remember my teachers advocating the British legal system as the best in the world because of the way we used rulings to evolve the system. I may be wrong. It was a long time ago. Still, as you say, if teachers are just mouth pieces for government propaganda, maybe we should have a European body to oversee them too. After all, it seems we can't do anything good for ourselves. You are quite right about the European Court of Justice and that is what people are sick of. Others interfering in our affairs. As I said in a previous post, if we interfered in others affairs, I am sure you would be the first to complain.
		
Click to expand...

Sweep.

Your (and others) views certainly differ from mine (and others). You are certainly entitled to have a different view (that's a human right enshrined somewhere .... Oh there!) but to imply that your view is that of 'the UK' is simply wrong. 

You still seem confused where the ECtHR fits in the British Legal system and don't seem capable of changing imo.

And would you not consider the invasion of Iraq a rather extreme example of 'interfering in others affairs'?


----------



## bluewolf (Jul 13, 2013)

Not really looking to join in this discussion anymore, but in the interests of research, does anyone know if there's a public record of all recent ECHR rulings relevant to Britain so that the discussion doesn't have to revolve around the few cases that get heavily publicized by the Media.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 13, 2013)

bluewolf said:



			Not really looking to join in this discussion anymore, but in the interests of research, does anyone know if there's a public record of all recent ECHR rulings relevant to Britain so that the discussion doesn't have to revolve around the few cases that get heavily publicized by the Media.
		
Click to expand...

Yes. But requires the same sort of delving as most other courts.

It also publishes a Diary specifying upcoming cases and the States involved.


----------



## bluewolf (Jul 13, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			Yes. But requires the same sort of delving as most other courts.

It also publishes a Diary specifying upcoming cases and the States involved.
		
Click to expand...

Thanks. Looks like i've got some research to do whilst watching the Cricket...


----------



## Fish (Jul 13, 2013)

bluewolf said:



			Thanks. Looks like i've got some research to do whilst watching the Cricket...
		
Click to expand...

Not sure which sounds the saddest :smirk:


----------



## Sweep (Jul 13, 2013)

Foxholer said:



			Sweep.

Your (and others) views certainly differ from mine (and others). You are certainly entitled to have a different view (that's a human right enshrined somewhere .... Oh there!) but to imply that your view is that of 'the UK' is simply wrong. 

You still seem confused where the ECtHR fits in the British Legal system and don't seem capable of changing imo.

And would you not consider the invasion of Iraq a rather extreme example of 'interfering in others affairs'?
		
Click to expand...

Thanks for letting me have an opinion. The left don't usually like that. Where did I say my opinions were that of the UK? I don't think you can deny there are people in the UK who have had enough of others delving into our affairs. One of the reasons for the rise of UKIP I suspect. There is little doubt that the Qatada affair highlighted the view of the UK _government_ differed greatly from the ECHR. It made our Prime Ministers blood boil apparently. I am not at all confused over where the ECHR fits in the British legal system. I am simply arguing that it shouldn't fit in at all. We have a perfectly good checks and balances system provided by the House of Lords, courts of appeal etc. However you and others seem to think others know better, even if you don't know who these "others" actually are. If you bother to read my posts, I have already stated that I disagreed wholeheartedly with us going into Iraq. I am very unsure as to why we are in Afghanistan. Though if we are limiting this discussion to human rights then Saddam was no champion and the Taliban aren't too hot in this area either. Can't actually remember the UK shooting a schoolgirl in the head for the henous act of wanting an education. But I might be wrong. We are the scum of the world after all.


----------



## stevie_r (Jul 13, 2013)

Sweep said:



			Thanks for letting me have an opinion. The left don't usually like that. Where did I say my opinions were that of the UK? I don't think you can deny there are people in the UK who have had enough of others delving into our affairs. One of the reasons for the rise of UKIP I suspect. There is little doubt that the Qatada affair highlighted the view of the UK _government_ differed greatly from the ECHR. It made our Prime Ministers blood boil apparently. I am not at all confused over where the ECHR fits in the British legal system. I am simply arguing that it shouldn't fit in at all. We have a perfectly good checks and balances system provided by the House of Lords, courts of appeal etc. However you and others seem to think others know better, even if you don't know who these "others" actually are. If you bother to read my posts, I have already stated that I disagreed wholeheartedly with us going into Iraq. I am very unsure as to why we are in Afghanistan. Though if we are limiting this discussion to human rights then Saddam was no champion and the Taliban aren't too hot in this area either. *Can't actually remember the UK shooting a schoolgirl in the head for the henous act of wanting an education.* But I might be wrong. We are the scum of the world after all.
		
Click to expand...

Can't remember the Afghan Government doing it either, I think you'll find that the Taliban are a terrorist organisation not a ruling party.


----------



## Foxholer (Jul 13, 2013)

Sweep said:



			Thanks for letting me have an opinion. The left don't usually like that. Where did I say my opinions were that of the UK? I don't think you can deny there are people in the UK who have had enough of others delving into our affairs. One of the reasons for the rise of UKIP I suspect. *There is little doubt that the Qatada affair highlighted the view of the UK government differed greatly from the ECHR*. It made our Prime Ministers blood boil apparently. I am not at all confused over where the ECHR fits in the British legal system. I am simply arguing that it shouldn't fit in at all. We have a perfectly good checks and balances system provided by the House of Lords, courts of appeal etc. However you and others seem to think others know better, even if you don't know who these "others" actually are. If you bother to read my posts, I have already stated that I disagreed wholeheartedly with us going into Iraq. I am very unsure as to why we are in Afghanistan. Though if we are limiting this discussion to human rights then Saddam was no champion and the Taliban aren't too hot in this area either. Can't actually remember the UK shooting a schoolgirl in the head for the henous act of wanting an education. But I might be wrong. We are the scum of the world after all.
		
Click to expand...

1. Note my use of the word 'imply' and your simple use of 'UK' rather than the likes of 'many/most n the UK'!
2. Oh yes, no doubt many object. And in some cases I do too. But the ECtHR is not 'delving into our affairs'! It's simply ruling on whether rulings in member states breach a set of agreed Articles.
3. You've finally got the message that it' the government that's the cause/problem, for whatever reason - in the case of Qatada, an (not unreasonable imo) overwhelming desire to get shut of him as soon as possible!
4. Well, by the number of rulings that go against the government, it would seem certain checks and balances aren't sufficient. That doesn't mean they are not superb btw!
5 I agree that Saddam and Taliban (and, as I posted earlier, almost certainly Qatada) are highly umlikely to respect Human Rights in the same way! I'm certain they would (have) which is why some Articles and a Judiciary is necessary!
6. I'm certain that, should UK ever withdraw from The Council of Europe - and I cannot forsee circumstances where it would - it would merely uplift the Convention and Articles and use them in UK Law!
7. I believe the use of Depleted Uranium ordnance is about as abhorrent as many of the obscenities carried out by the Taliban.
http://grassrootspeace.org/DuRokkeGreece.pdf
http://rense.com/general33/depl.htm
8. It's not a case of being 'scum of the world'. Just a case of getting it wrong occasionally, then refusing to 'play the game' (which it's not!).


----------



## Sweep (Jul 14, 2013)

stevie_r said:



			Can't remember the Afghan Government doing it either, I think you'll find that the Taliban are a terrorist organisation not a ruling party.
		
Click to expand...

I think they would like to be in government though? And whilst we may question why the British are there, you can't deny our presence is helping human rights in that area.


----------

