Human rights...

[stevie_r]

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.

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]

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

Is the right answer

 

[Foxholer]

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

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

 

[Sweep]

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

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

 

[stevie_r]

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.

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]

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!

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]

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

Yes

 

[In_The_Rough]

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

: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]

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.

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]

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

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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!

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]

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]

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.

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]

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?

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]

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.

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]

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?

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]

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.

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]

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

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?