Location: Back in the land of the singing aardvarks looking for the escape hatch.....
Age: 42
Posts: 1,207
Casey - the main reason people in the UK want to dump the Human Rights Act is because it is being manipulated by criminals and 'asylum seekers'. Case in point - yesterday, a judge jailed a 16 year old Angolan 'asylum seeker' for murder. He had supposedly come to this country as his own was not safe to live in. The Home Office gave him 'indefinite leave to stay' as they claim that under the European Human Rights Act, it would be unlawful to deport him to a country where he might be persecuted. He repaid the UK's hospitality by walking into a family christening (not his family I might add) in London, and shooting dead a woman who was cradling her baby niece in her arms, then, with the three other members of his gang (who were also, yep, you guessed it, 'asylum seekers'), they robbed everyone at the christening at gunpoint. A few weeks later, he fatally stabbed a 15 year old pastor's daughter because she 'disrespected' him.
Another case would be the armed robbery of a travel agents in Bradford last year when an armed gang of 'asylum seekers' (let live here by the Home Office because they came from Somalia which made the poor wee lambs fear for their lives and run to nice old Britain for a happier, more peaceful existence) shot dead an unarmed Policewoman who posed no great threat to them as they were already escaping at the time. Three of them have been banged up but the ringleader is believed to be living in Somalia. Funny how he's happy to live there now, it's obviuously not scary anymore.
These are just two of many examples which ridiculously blight our lives and cost UK taxpayers a fortune every year. The only people winning out of it are the fatcat Hooman Rights lawyers/barristers (of which Mrs Tony Blair happens to be one. She set up a barristers' chambers just a few months before the Act became applicable in the UK. Deary me, I wonder how she knew that was going to happen?) who perpetuate the whole nonsense by taking up any case no matter how ridiculous, at huge cost to the taxpayer.
Local yobs damage your property and make your area unsafe to walk around in, you tell the rozzers, they say they can do nothing without evidence. You get the camera or video camera out and film them causing damage. The rozzers warn you to be careful because filming these yobs 'infringes their human rights'. Escaped prisoners cannot be identified or their crimes cannot be publicised(according to some Police forces) because it 'infringes their human rights'.
It's utter f**king madness, why would we want to keep it? Tell me, Casey, why oh why would we want to keep such an odious Act.
Petition duly signed, whether it does any good or not, well that's another matter.
JetBlast member 2005. JetBlast member 2006. Banned 2007
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: The US of A - sort of
Posts: 313
Casey and Standard each make valid, yet oposing points.
But how far back would you roll it? Hopefully not all the way to the twelfth century. I don't think any of us would want to live in that world.
In any event, what if this is exactly what the authorities want us to do? What if they use the act in such a way that the public despair, ask for its removal and then the authorities oblige, but don't stop?
My take is that is not the Human Rights Act that is the problem, it's the fear and cowardice it generates in those with authority. Same with a lot of HSE stuff. I suspect that in a high percentage of the cases where the HR act is cited as an excuse, if it ended up in court it would be thrown out.
Educating the police, councils, teachers etc etc as to what the act actually means would be a more effective approach.
One thing i have never really understood, if a person knowingly breaks the law, the same law's that keeps society from anarchy, surely that person has forfited his rights in that society? So how can someone fleeing 'persecution' in another country expect to be treated the same if they break the law? Why dont we just deport them back to their country to be tried by their laws, must be a deterant to some? Brat
Location: Back in the land of the singing aardvarks looking for the escape hatch.....
Age: 42
Posts: 1,207
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh! - now here's the thing, the mad mullahs would have us back in the 7th century under Sharia law, given the chance. So why don't we just go back far enough, to the mid 20th century for example, when we had capital punishment. That should be far enough.
I mean, why spend 25 or 30K a year imprisoning 'asylum seekers' who abuse our hospitality and murder UK citizens when you can just sling a noose over the nearest gallows? Or make prisoners do their time, not just a fraction of it and make 'em do hard labour as well. Plenty of roads needing re-laying and graffiti to be removed. Oh silly me, it'd be against their 'Hooman Rights', wouldn't it? The poor wee lambs can't actually be expected to pay their debt to society, god forbid, not when Phil and Fern are on the 40" plasma screen on C wing! The world has gone mad, Dennis Nielsen successfully used the EHRA to gain access to gay porn whilst serving X amount of life sentences for mass murder and all because denial of such material is against his 'Hooman Rights'. WTF!?!? Nice to see this bit of legislation is doing what it should be.
Oh yeah, Casey, you still haven't explained why you think we should keep this piece of dog sh!t law.
It's strange..... Yesterday, I listened to a senior law officer talking about the HRA, and his view was slightly different.
Citing his specific examples. The refusual of police to name suspects, no reason why they could not name the suspects, they relied though, for reasoning, on instruction issued by the his department, which he then went on to admit was misleading.
He then went onto Nelison and his attempt to access porn in prison. Yes, he tried to use the HRA, but, the application was dismissed on day one.
So, how much of the hype is based on fact, how much is based on rumour? How much is based on a wrong inturpretation, and how much on fact?
The examples quoted so far are mostly rumour, and the ones surrounding Somalians in my view are more to do with Goverment and UN policy than the act. It was Goverment Policy not to deport those to countries where they may face persecution or death long beofre the act.
There are good things about the HRA, and some that are either bad, or misinturpreted, that is a fault in any act of Parliament.
Lasly, some of those who are quick to attack the act, are the same people who fully embrass it when it concerns thier own presumed right to ignore speed limits. Again like many peices of legislation, there are many who like it to apply when it suits, but not when it doesn't.
Location: Back in the land of the singing aardvarks looking for the escape hatch.....
Age: 42
Posts: 1,207
bjcc - from what I can gather, Nilsen (sorry spelt it wrong yesterday) applied for the right to be allowed access to gay porn because the EHRA enshrines the 'right to information and freedom of expression'. The Prison Service caved in because they thought they had no grounds to withold such material from him and couldn't be arsed fighting it in court because of the costs involved.
Oh and a convicted rapist, whose second (yes second) appeal, he claimed, took too long to come to court, successfully sued under the EHRA and was awarded 4K for his troubles because his 'hooman rights' were breached by the delay. Incidentally, his second appeal failed as did the first and the original conviction stood. Still, he's 4K better off because of T Bliar's wonderful idea of bringing in this law. I wonder how much the rape victim was awarded for having her life destroyed, she must have felt much better knowing that legislation designed to protect peoples' rights has made her attacker a wealthy man!?
As regards to Nileson, however it's spelt, I can only go with waht this guy said on the radio yesterday. He asked for the porn, was told no. He then tried again, by going to court, and using the HRA, which was dismissed on day one. This would all be a matter of public record, and therefore he was probably being truthful about it.
The rapist? No idea about that, I don't recall seeing anything about it, but it has long been an abuse of process to delay proccedings. Long meaning, as far back as the end of the 70's to my knowladge, and therefore long before human rights legislation.
Don't get me wrong, I do believe that the act is abused by some. there are parts which do have a benifit to us all though. The sad thing is that the abuse makes the news, the benifit doesn't.
it has long been an abuse of process to delay proccedings. Long meaning, as far back as the end of the 70's to my knowladge, and therefore long before human rights legislation.
That is not correct.
Under UK law, mere delay (even unjustifed delay) does not of itself amount to an abuse of process. In contrast, Article 6 (1) of the ECHR confers on any defendant the right to trial within a reasonable time.
