Life means Life - again

[SocketRocket]

Because the Judiciary of individual Countries, however good and independent they are, only rule on The Law (1). And Law is created by Politicians for their own political reasons, so could quite possibly clash with what they and previous politicians have agreed to as 'Human Rights'. It is the ECHR that subsequently has the final say on such clashes.

Worth mentioning (again) that ECHR is a distinct entity and is not part of the EU. The 'European' part of the title may mislead, or allow misleading! Especially UK Governments (and particularly Home Office Ministers/Home Secretaries)! Even if UK withdrew from the EU, UK Law could still be challenged in ECHR!

(1) though in UK, The Human Rights Act requires them to 'have regard' for ECHR Decisions (or likely ones I believe).

I would still like an answer from SILH.

I take your point although the UK Parliament was signed up to the ECOHR by the previous administration. As a Nation we do not have to use this court as the ultimate decider on law issues. I am of the school that would prefer our own Law courts (that are independent of Parliament ) to decide on how our laws are interpreted. The ECOHR is a body made up of Judges from some countries that don't have anything like the experience of our legal system. I can accept that some countries, especially those that are fairly young will need some assistance with overseeing their laws are just, we dont need this and should remove ourselves at the earliest convenience. IMO.

 

[Foxholer]

...
I take your point although the UK Parliament was signed up to the ECOHR by the previous administration. As a Nation we do not have to use this court as the ultimate decider on law issues. I am of the school that would prefer our own Law courts (that are independent of Parliament ) to decide on how our laws are interpreted. The ECOHR is a body made up of Judges from some countries that don't have anything like the experience of our legal system. I can accept that some countries, especially those that are fairly young will need some assistance with overseeing their laws are just, we dont need this and should remove ourselves at the earliest convenience. IMO.

You seem to still have the confusion as to what ECHR is and how UK relates.

This might help http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/948143.stm

It was not THE previous Administration that signed up to it, it was A previous..(in 1951). And UK was a developer/instigator of it - through the Council of Europe! A totally different entity to the European Union! Better to consider it in the same way as the Hague based International Criminal Court.

What the 'previous administration' did was to attempt to minimise the need to go to the ECHR, by bringing in legislation (HRA 1998) equivalent to/referencing the Articles of ECHR, so that UK Courts could deal with most cases. Of course, the final say is still ECHR.

And the sophistication, or otherwise, of UK Laws is unrelated to the whether their prosecution (in the true meaning of the word) may breach someone's Human Rights.

There is no way UK would (or at least should) withdraw from ECHR, even by the subterfuge of 'imbedding ECHR rules' in UK Law. That is just an excuse by Home Secretaries to get around embarrassing situations (normally of their own making, or other bad legislation) and get their own way. It's no different, imo, to the 'justice' meted out by the vigilante mob that JCW mentions - convenient, but inhuman! No sitting Government likes to have its Laws challenged, but when they are 'inhuman' that's exactly what should happen. And the ECHR is the final arbitar of whether the challenge is valid or not.

 

[SocketRocket]

You seem to still have the confusion as to what ECHR is and how UK relates.

This might help http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/948143.stm

It was not THE previous Administration that signed up to it, it was A previous..(in 1951). And UK was a developer/instigator of it - through the Council of Europe! A totally different entity to the European Union! Better to consider it in the same way as the Hague based International Criminal Court.

What the 'previous administration' did was to attempt to minimise the need to go to the ECHR, by bringing in legislation (HRA 1998) equivalent to/referencing the Articles of ECHR, so that UK Courts could deal with most cases. Of course, the final say is still ECHR.

And the sophistication, or otherwise, of UK Laws is unrelated to the whether their prosecution (in the true meaning of the word) may breach someone's Human Rights.

There is no way UK would (or at least should) withdraw from ECHR, even by the subterfuge of 'imbedding ECHR rules' in UK Law. That is just an excuse by Home Secretaries to get around embarrassing situations (normally of their own making, or other bad legislation) and get their own way. It's no different, imo, to the 'justice' meted out by the vigilante mob that JCW mentions - convenient, but inhuman! No sitting Government likes to have its Laws challenged, but when they are 'inhuman' that's exactly what should happen. And the ECHR is the final arbitar of whether the challenge is valid or not.

I do know that its no part of the EEC. My point is that it is not fit for purpose and we have always had our own appeal system where the House of Lords was the ultimate decider. We have seen time and time again where the ECOHR had made rulings that are at odds with the wishes of the people in the UK and IMO the sooner we break away from it and instigate our own bill of Hunan Rights the better. I think I am not alone in this wish by any means.

 

[Foxholer]

I do know that its no part of the EEC. My point is that it is not fit for purpose and we have always had our own appeal system where the House of Lords was the ultimate decider. We have seen time and time again where the ECOHR had made rulings that are at odds with the wishes of the people in the UK and IMO the sooner we break away from it and instigate our own bill of Hunan Rights the better. I think I am not alone in this wish by any means.

Oh, I don't think you are alone, though I think your 'not fit for purpose' really means 'makes decisions I don't like'!

I think it's absolutely fit for purpose, but that doesn't mean it doesn't make decisions I don't like - though I can't think of one off-hand.

Every one of it's decisions in favour of a UK citizen/resident will be one 'not liked' by the Government, otherwise the case wouldn't have got there!

Its independence is imperitive imo. A government can simply 'direct' any of its own bodies (by one means or another) to make the decision it favours!

Btw. EEC? Bit behind the times!

 

[woody69]

Oh, I don't think you are alone, though I think your 'not fit for purpose' really means 'makes decisions I don't like'!

I think it's absolutely fit for purpose, but that doesn't mean it doesn't make decisions I don't like - though I can't think of one off-hand.

Every one of it's decisions in favour of a UK citizen/resident will be one 'not liked' by the Government, otherwise the case wouldn't have got there!

Its independence is imperitive imo. A government can simply 'direct' any of its own bodies (by one means or another) to make the decision it favours!

Btw. EEC? Bit behind the times!

I guess one such example of a decision many didn't like as when they recently stopped Abu Qatada being deported back to Jordan as the evidence that could be used against him may have been obtained through torture. He's obviously not a very nice person and I can understand why most people wanted him our of our country, but at the same time, I can see the flip side of the coin and look at the bigger picture that he was being protected rightly because of something that went on in Jordan to get evidence against him. Let's say someone under torture had said that you were a terrorist and the authorities said you should face charges back in their country. That rule (39) would also protect you.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I would still like an answer from SILH.

I take your point although the UK Parliament was signed up to the ECOHR by the previous administration. As a Nation we do not have to use this court as the ultimate decider on law issues. I am of the school that would prefer our own Law courts (that are independent of Parliament ) to decide on how our laws are interpreted. The ECOHR is a body made up of Judges from some countries that don't have anything like the experience of our legal system. I can accept that some countries, especially those that are fairly young will need some assistance with overseeing their laws are just, we dont need this and should remove ourselves at the earliest convenience. IMO.

I just believe one is necessary as it is too easy to pass judgment based upon a current set of circumstances or prejudices rather than on the merit of an individual case in the broader or longer context. In the UK we have developed a society where in general our basic human rights are upheld. However it is true that some of the things that some chose to refer to as human rights can obscure real and basic human rights and raise our hackles - mine also. But these are in the main surely relatively small acceptances and concessions to make when considering human rights in their truest sense.

 

[Foxholer]

I guess one such example of a decision many didn't like as when they recently stopped Abu Qatada being deported back to Jordan as the evidence that could be used against him may have been obtained through torture. He's obviously not a very nice person and I can understand why most people wanted him our of our country, but at the same time, I can see the flip side of the coin and look at the bigger picture that he was being protected rightly because of something that went on in Jordan to get evidence against him. Let's say someone under torture had said that you were a terrorist and the authorities said you should face charges back in their country. That rule (39) would also protect you.

Exactly!

That case should be celebrated for what it achieved and how it demonstrated that Human Rights considerations don't prevent proper Legal Process. Shouldn't be celebrated for the cost however, but UK Government was the cause of much, if not all, of that!

 

[JCW]

We are by far too soft over here , We give people who don't care two bits about other peoples human rights far too much freedom , they offend and abuse the system and others till they are caught then will give them money to buy the best defence to fight for their human rights .....................captain hook for one , sometimes you just need to kick these guys out , human rights or not but we don't because we want to see things done right and these crooks know it and the take full advantage .................what is the right way to go about these things , don't really know but I guess we must have a standard way for everyone and hope we get it right more times then not

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Kick them out ? To where exactly ?

 

[JCW]

Kick them out ? To where exactly ?

If they were born here , then its Australia for them , the others back to where they were born , if cant go there , shoot them into space :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: , I think crooks get more rights then those of us that obey the law .

 

[Hacker Khan]

what is the right way to go about these things , don't really know but I guess we must have a standard way for everyone and hope we get it right more times then not

Which we do. It's just the usual suspects in the media having a field day when you get the one off cases that goes against their particular agenda. In fact if we get it wrong so often, care to name more 3 such cases without resorting to the internet?

 

[JCW]

Which we do. It's just the usual suspects in the media having a field day when you get the one off cases that goes against their particular agenda. In fact if we get it wrong so often, care to name more 3 such cases without resorting to the internet?

Birmingham 6 and a guy who done 20 years , then I got to use the net, shawshank redemption lol

 

[Foxholer]

... hope we get it right more times then not

:rofl:
So that's what the 'scales of justice' are all about!

You are either completely ignorant/unappreciative of what almost 800 years of British justice is all about, or are simply Trolling!

Of course, you are quite at liberty to hold such idiotic uncivilised views. In the sort of society that applies those sort of rules, you could just as easily be shot, or sent to a concentration camp, or to Killing Fields for re-education. Oh and all your near relatives would suffer similar fate too! Not the sort of Democracy I want thanks - I'll live with the occasional blip that demonstrates Human Rights are the supreme consideration rather than particular whims of any government!

 

[JCW]

:rofl:
So that's what the 'scales of justice' are all about!

You are either completely ignorant/unappreciative of what almost 800 years of British justice is all about, or are simply Trolling!

Of course, you are quite at liberty to hold such idiotic uncivilised views. In the sort of society that applies those sort of rules, you could just as easily be shot, or sent to a concentration camp, or to Killing Fields for re-education. Oh and all your near relatives would suffer similar fate too! Not the sort of Democracy I want thanks - I'll live with the occasional blip that demonstrates Human Rights are the supreme consideration rather than particular whims of any government!

No I am not trolling , no I am not ignorant , just giving a point of view as too what goes on elsewhere how much it has benefited the area in more investment and how it has change the lives of those that live their lives within the laws as it does to those that don't , one thing I am not is rude to others , do you know me and what I stand for , so just what to you base your judgement of me if all you know about me is what I let you know about me on this forum , manners to others cost nothing , my parents always taught me to treat others how you wish them to treat you , I was 55 on the 14th of this month and I still hold that advice till today and treat people as I wish them to treat me . now what works for one or one part of the world does not mean its suitable elsewhere , ever been to hong kong or Singapore , they have rules about rubbish , you only find rubbish in the bins over there , do you see that ever happening over here ....................EYG Ps killing fields , ever been to Vietnam , no killing fields there in 2014

 

[Foxholer]

There's a bit of a difference between the eminently sensible attitude in Singapore - where I have seen rubbish not in bins, chewing gum on pavements, folk smoking and speeding - that actually works reasonably well, and the use of Death Squads without due process.

And the Killing Fields I was referring to were Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge's ones in Cambodia! Somewhere between 1.4 and 3 million killed!

You'd probably enjoy the democratic North Korean approach too! Don't just kill the 'offender', but all relatives as well!

 

[JCW]

There's a bit of a difference between the eminently sensible attitude in Singapore - where I have seen rubbish not in bins, chewing gum on pavements, folk smoking and speeding - that actually works reasonably well, and the use of Death Squads without due process.

And the Killing Fields I was referring to were Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge's ones in Cambodia! Somewhere between 1.4 and 3 million killed!

You'd probably enjoy the democratic North Korean approach too! Don't just kill the 'offender', but all relatives as well!

You doing a very good job at showing yourself up so I leave you to it , I am a very well travel man and I will leave it at that .................EYG

 

[Deleted member 15344]

You doing a very good job at showing yourself up so I leave you to it , I am a very well travel man and I will leave it at that .................EYG

Anyone that endorses death squads needs to have a quiet word with themselves

In fact you seem to endorse death for a lot of people

 

[JCW]

Anyone that endorses death squads needs to have a quiet word with themselves

In fact you seem to endorse death for a lot of people

You eating at the same table as foxholer , you showing yourself up too , I don't endorse anything , when in Rome you follow their rules and so on , why ? only a stupid person would go against it and say they don't do that in the UK , we got rights , the brits abroad are one of the most stupid I have ever seen in my life of travelling , football fans being the worse , just because you a big group you think you can misbehave , its their country and there is more of them and bigger groups , then there is the police , no use telling them your UK rights because you are not in the UK and they lock you up while the local guys go home ..................never learn, anyway that's my lot on the subject , you have your views I have mine and I am not getting into the rights and wrongs , leave that to you thanks

 

[Deleted member 15344]

You eating at the same table as foxholer , you showing yourself up too , I don't endorse anything , when in Rome you follow their rules and so on , why ? only a stupid person would go against it and say they don't do that in the UK , we got rights , the brits abroad are one of the most stupid I have ever seen in my life of travelling , football fans being the worse , just because you a big group you think you can misbehave , its their country and there is more of them and bigger groups , then there is the police , no use telling them your UK rights because you are not in the UK and they lock you up while the local guys go home ..................never learn

Not sure what that drivel has to do with my post

And yes you did condone the use of death squads and even suggested they are a good thing because they stop crime

That's enough to suggest the problem lies with you

 

[JCW]

Not sure what that drivel has to do with my post

And yes you did condone the use of death squads and even suggested they are a good thing because they stop crime

That's enough to suggest the problem lies with you

You lost the Liverpool football thread so now you having a little dig , I don't have a problem with my views , but you do so be it , I don't condone killing of any form , if others choose to do it then its up to them , me , I was force to watch 2 people die , not my choice but I had to go through it , before you show yourself up again I will explain that I drove high speed trains for 35 years , that's one of the reasons I retired early because others force me to watch them end their life`s , it was their choice but I did not have the choice so you see I don't condone killing of any sort ........................., that's life be it here in the UK or the rest of the world , you will always have injustice in some form or other