Human rights...

[stevie_r]

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.

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

 

[stevie_r]

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.

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

 

[Scouser]

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

Police, army and self defence?!?!

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

before or after trial?

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

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]

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.

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]

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

A rather Glib statement without substance.

 

[SocketRocket]

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!

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]

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.

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]

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...

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]

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

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]

I'm not bashing the English at all.

.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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

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

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.

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!

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

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).

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.

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]

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).

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]

Don't know who you are referring to as plebs

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]

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

 

[Foxholer]

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

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]

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]

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!

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

 

[SocketRocket]

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'.

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