Human rights...

[Foxholer]

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

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]

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

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

 

[Sweep]

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).

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]

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

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]

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.

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

 

[Foxholer]

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

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.

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?

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]

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!

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]

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.

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]

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

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

 

[SocketRocket]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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!

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

 

[In_The_Rough]

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!

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]

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?

Why are you so focused on one particular individual issue?

 

[In_The_Rough]

Why are you so focused on one particular individual issue?

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]

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?

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!

Why are you so focused on one particular individual issue?

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]

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!

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]

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?

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]

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. !

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.