Human rights...

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.

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.
 
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?
 
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.

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
 
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?

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
 
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.

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
 
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.

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.
 
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

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.
 
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.

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

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

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
 
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'
 
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'

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

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.
 
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.

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

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.
 
Top