Human rights...

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.

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.
 
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.

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
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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).
 
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).

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
 
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.
 
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

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

Murderers lock up no chance of parole. Punishment fits the crime, take a life yours over
 
Would you still say that if it was your Son or Daughter that had been murdered.

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.
 
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

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?
 
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

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

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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

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...
 
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...

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.
 
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
 
Top