Jump to content
supa

Infringements of Human Rights Act

Recommended Posts

I have seen many cases this week (mainly in The Mail granted!) of people "getting off with things" by chanting that it will infringe their Human Rights. Is this a global Act that all countries sign up to, or purely European as I'm getting bloddy sick of hearing it being used in what, to me, are spurious cases. Not at all au fait with it, but I'm guessing that it was set up with very good intentions and has done an inordinate amount of good, but can't help feeling that it's all getting a bit out of hand. Do you get this in Oz or is there an equivalent? Just wondering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest59177

care to elaborate what kind of things???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, yes I should have put some links. Am at work so am restricted as to what I can find, but here are a few:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2042198/Another-3-terrorists-dodge-deportation-using-Human-Rights-Act.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1392885/Prisoner-allowed-father-child-jail-human-right-family-life.html

 

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/273928/Jail-van-driven-96-miles-to-save-prisoner-60-yard-walk-to-court

 

I'm not against the Act, but feel that it should be restricted so as to not water it down and not "cheapen" it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest59177

Can't believe it at all. Why release people out when they are considered a threat to society? I didn't get if these guys got out of prision because they won a case or because their jail term ended. If it is the latter, then really :arghh: what's the sense of setting free a person who is known to run a website giving instructions on making suicide jackets?????? :arghh:

 

Commonsense says that at best these people should be gradually re-introduced into society - IF at all. Honestly, that jacket guy would be right in business with 'skills in demand' in Somalia I'd say :mad: Why stop a man from 'earning his keep' (can't find a puke smilie here)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Guest 47403
I have seen many cases this week (mainly in The Mail granted!) of people "getting off with things" by chanting that it will infringe their Human Rights. Is this a global Act that all countries sign up to, or purely European as I'm getting bloddy sick of hearing it being used in what, to me, are spurious cases. Not at all au fait with it, but I'm guessing that it was set up with very good intentions and has done an inordinate amount of good, but can't help feeling that it's all getting a bit out of hand. Do you get this in Oz or is there an equivalent? Just wondering.

 

Because the UK is turning into a puppet of Europe they say jump we ask how high, we could stand on our own 2 feet once upon a time unfortunately those days are starting to look as if they are long gone.

 

Human rights are a good thing, however we need our own human rights act and it needs to be written by sensible people in touch with the real world not someone sat in Brussels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest59177
Because the UK is turning into a puppet of European union they say jump we ask how high, we could stand on our own 2 feet once upon a time unfortunately those days are starting to look as if they are long gone.

 

Human rights are a good thing, however we need our own human rights act and it needs to be written by sensible people in touch with the real world not someone sat in Brussels.

 

Heh it would be telling if we could find out if Brussels would deport them or not if they had been there :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest37336

The Human Act Right is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation EVER passed and should be adhered to by ALL signed up nations.

 

BUT, and this is the big BUT, it is now a 'right' that is being used by many as a 'get out clause' far too often. A society where we can use the human act right as a coverall for all manner of things said and done.

 

And the main problem with this present mindset is that many now view the act as nothing more than an 'excuse' for many to do as they want, when they want and to who they want, it is now a joke.

 

And the idiots who hide behind this vale of Human Rights are taking away the TRUE meaning of the act, to protect those that cant fight for justice by themselves, i.e., North Korea, China, and many other nations on earth.

 

It's about time the powers that be stopped the pi77 taking of the many and concentrated on the true injustices of this world that often go unnoticed/ignored because some numpty has decided his/her human rights have been violated because they can no longer act like a prat and getaway with it.

 

Rant over.

 

Tony.:cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is my point exactly thanks. I re-read my original post and wondered if I was being a bit Daily Mail right wing and controversial (which isn't actually my intention), but seriously, these cases cannot be right in any civilised (or sensible) society.

 

 

 

The Human Act Right is probably one of the most important pieces of legislation EVER passed and should be adhered to by ALL signed up nations.

 

BUT, and this is the big BUT, it is now a 'right' that is being used by many as a 'get out clause' far too often. A society where we can use the human act right as a coverall for all manner of things said and done.

 

And the main problem with this present mindset is that many now view the act as nothing more than an 'excuse' for many to do as they want, when they want and to who they want, it is now a joke.

 

And the idiots who hide behind this vale of Human Rights are taking away the TRUE meaning of the act, to protect those that cant fight for justice by themselves, i.e., North Korea, China, and many other nations on earth.

 

It's about time the powers that be stopped the pi77 taking of the many and concentrated on the true injustices of this world that often go unnoticed/ignored because some numpty has decided his/her human rights have been violated because they can no longer act like a prat and getaway with it.

 

Rant over.

 

Tony.:cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest37336

Sorry Supa.

 

But I didn't read the links you put, as I 'think I have a fair idea of what you are saying.

 

This sort of thing makes me fume and I will do all I can to stop this bloody stupid mindset.

 

Around three years ago there was an elderly gentleman in my local area that was having his meals on wheels access taken away, due to cuts and what the local authority said, 'He was capable of looking after himself'.:mad:

 

Do you know the tests they made him go through, among many was that because he could stand on one leg for ten seconds he was deemed fit and able to do his own cooking.

 

Never mind he was an old soldier, lost his wife the year before and COULD NOT stand for more than ten minutes and any one time.

 

Did he scream human rights, no, he just 'accepted' the decision, that was until a few of us decided to take on the council and after long and protracted 'debate' they reinstated his meals on wheels service and is now still getting them.

 

It makes me puke when a numpty decides that the slightest infringement of a so called act will in their opinion be 'unfair', feck em matey, but I do tend to get on my horse with this sort of stuff I'm afraid

 

Cheers Tony.:wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest59177
Sorry Supa.

 

But I didn't read the links you put, as I 'think I have a fair idea of what you are saying.

 

This sort of thing makes me fume and I will do all I can to stop this bloody stupid mindset.

 

Around three years ago there was an elderly gentleman in my local area that was having his meals on wheels access taken away, due to cuts and what the local authority said, 'He was capable of looking after himself'.:mad:

 

Do you know the tests they made him go through, among many was that because he could stand on one leg for ten seconds he was deemed fit and able to do his own cooking.

 

Never mind he was an old soldier, lost his wife the year before and COULD NOT stand for more than ten minutes and any one time.

 

Did he scream human rights, no, he just 'accepted' the decision, that was until a few of us decided to take on the council and after long and protracted 'debate' they reinstated his meals on wheels service and is now still getting them.

 

It makes me puke when a numpty decides that the slightest infringement of a so called act will in their opinion be 'unfair', feck em matey, but I do tend to get on my horse with this sort of stuff I'm afraid

 

Cheers Tony.:wink:

 

Ban the immigration lawyers :biglaugh: The numpty has no way of knowing he's got a way out without them!!! By the way, what's a numpty??? :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ban the immigration lawyers :biglaugh: The numpty has no way of knowing he's got a way out without them!!! By the way, what's a numpty??? :confused:

 

I think you are right. There do seem to be an inordinate number of lawyers with their faces in the trough.

 

Numpty means a muppet or an idiot (great word I always think).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems everyones jumping on the pah human rights bandwagon, a bit like when everyone was complaining about political correctness gone mad. Ie the tabloid press. How anyone can suggest human rights are a bad thing is beyond me, still plenty of idiots out there i suppose.


Ich bin nicht ein Roboter

I am a lion

Raar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems everyones jumping on the pah human rights bandwagon, a bit like when everyone was complaining about political correctness gone mad. Ie the tabloid press. How anyone can suggest human rights are a bad thing is beyond me, still plenty of idiots out there i suppose.

 

You may notice from my original post that I am in no way condemning the actual Act as it appears from my limited knowledge that it has achieved some very important results in many countries, which cannot be in any way condemned - obviously. However, I feel the links to the articles prove (yes they are based mainly on tabloids, but two of them were featured on BBC news, so I'm guessing that there is some truth, unless you know otherwise?) that the system is being abused - an idiot can see that. However, I'm interested to know if there can be a mechanism put in place to "weed out" such cases. Surely you cannot possibly justify these instances as being OK? Or is it a case of a means justifying the end, in which case, we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

PS I don't think myself or others who have expressed opinion in my thread, or indeed anyone who dares to question something should be regarded as "idiots" as appears to be your implication. Thankyou.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry, yes I should have put some links. Am at work so am restricted as to what I can find, but here are a few:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2042198/Another-3-terrorists-dodge-deportation-using-Human-Rights-Act.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1392885/Prisoner-allowed-father-child-jail-human-right-family-life.html

 

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/273928/Jail-van-driven-96-miles-to-save-prisoner-60-yard-walk-to-court

 

I'm not against the Act, but feel that it should be restricted so as to not water it down and not "cheapen" it.

 

 

The first link shows that neither of the people mentioned have actually used the Act. The Mail suggests that they 'might', or 'could'. It's a non story, made into a story so they can moan once more about us all having universally enshrined human rights!

 

The second one has no details whatsoever about the person in prison. Who is he? what are his circumstances? does he or his partner have a medical condition meaning that IVF is necessary? He may have waited on a list for 10 years and be serving 2 weeks for not paying council tax!!! His partner may be experiencing cancer and this is their only chance of conceiving.

 

Re story 3 - Imagine the outcry if a prisoner escapes, or attacks someone in the street whilst being walked to court? The Express and Mail would be the first to be making that story front page news.

There's also the small part of the British justice system that states that you are innocent until proven guilty - public humiliation was outlawed sometime in the 19th Century I believe.

The article also speaks of the van being contracted- so there's actually no extra cost to anyone regardless!

 

 

What this shows is not the pitfalls of the act, but the pitfalls of selective reporting of the facts in order to suit the agenda of the source of information.


"An inspirational leader...exceptionally enthusiastic, committed and motivated" OFSTED 2014.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the very succinct response Paul. Always good to get balance on issues. Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You may notice from my original post that I am in no way condemning the actual Act as it appears from my limited knowledge that it has achieved some very important results in many countries, which cannot be in any way condemned - obviously. However, I feel the links to the articles prove (yes they are based mainly on tabloids, but two of them were featured on BBC news, so I'm guessing that there is some truth, unless you know otherwise?) that the system is being abused - an idiot can see that. However, I'm interested to know if there can be a mechanism put in place to "weed out" such cases. Surely you cannot possibly justify these instances as being OK? Or is it a case of a means justifying the end, in which case, we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

PS I don't think myself or others who have expressed opinion in my thread, or indeed anyone who dares to question something should be regarded as "idiots" as appears to be your implication. Thankyou.

 

Sorry poor English on my part, the idiots I was referring to are the one's who only read the headline and that's who the papers aim at, I appreciate you weren't condemning the act in itself.

Unfortunately in a free society some systems can and will be used and abused its a price we have to bear.


Ich bin nicht ein Roboter

I am a lion

Raar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is in the stupid interpretations and judgments from British judges not the Human Rights Act or the European Convention on Human Rights. Most of Europe also has ratified the Act but does not have these silly judgments. The HRA and ECHR also have nothing to do with the EU. The convention is separate and most of eastern Europe is also subject to it. Victoria and ACT also have similar Acts but you rarely hear of people trying it on and even fewer get away from it. I blame the lawyers and guess who is one of the most active Human Rights Lawyers? Cherie Blair!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×