The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Bye bye Britain

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Bye bye Britain

Post by Guest on 02.03.13 22:40

A great day for British Justice. Daily Mail announces just now.

Theresa May vows to take the UK out of the European Court for Human Rights.

This is hailed as beneficial for the UK.

Could be.

Perhaps.

We the united people of the Union are doing allright, we think.

Any comments from the Forum?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Bye bye Britain

Post by Tony Bennett on 02.03.13 22:49

Removing us from the arbitrary jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, if achieved, would cause a national outpouring of joy in the United KIngdom.

Just for starters, we could end the absurd decision that some prisoners have the right to vote - because to deny them the right to vote would breach their human rights.

There are hundreds of murderers walking the streets of Britain, who have complete freedom, when they have ended one of the most fundamental human rights of all - the right to life.

And one of the main reasons so many murderers are able to walk free, often after sickenly short prison terms...is because of the ivory tower pontificating of Human Rights judges in Strasbourg

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bye bye Britain

Post by plebgate on 02.03.13 23:03

I would say hurray because I am sick of tired of criminals and thugs getting away with blue murder in this country. Apparently under the human rights act if you are a crim. you can claim your right to family life in Britain and keep out of jail if you own a cat.

Get out as soon as poss. I say.

plebgate

Posts : 5440
Reputation : 1155
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bye bye Britain

Post by Guest on 02.03.13 23:07

I am flabbergasted with these comments. I would not know of one single case in the Netherlands where criminals walk free because of the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ... So what's so different in the U.K. then? Please enlighten me.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Bye bye Britain

Post by plebgate on 02.03.13 23:13

The difference is Britain adhere to the stupid decisions made by the court and other countries do not.

plebgate

Posts : 5440
Reputation : 1155
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bye bye Britain

Post by olipet on 02.03.13 23:39

Speaking from personal experience I can assure all of you above have no idea what life is like in a prison here in the UK. Its not Brazil but it sure isn't pleasant. I don't think prisons as they are, should exist at all. And with reference to 'murderers' who have deliberately taken someone elses life, they are sick and should be in a hospital for the mentally ill. Maybe for life - but not kept in inhumane conditions. We are meant to be a sophisticated country and capital punishment has been abolished. I promise you, that you all would consider lawful human rights if you worked with prisoners or had a loved one in jail - And no, you cannot get a get out of jail free card for having a family - or a cat.

Remember, its not just murderers.
Its young men who are drunk in a fight outside the pub.
Its drivers who have been unknowingly reckless.
Its tragic, tragic crimes of passion.
Its possessing an ounce of cannabis.
Its having such a chaotic upbringing that prison is the only escape.
Its getting too many points on your licence.



olipet

Posts : 76
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bye bye Britain

Post by Tony Bennett on 02.03.13 23:46

Châtelaine wrote:I am flabbergasted with these comments. I would not know of one single case in the Netherlands where criminals walk free because of the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ... So what's so different in the U.K. then? Please enlighten me.
This happens every day in this once well-ruled land.

Here's just one classic example - a burglar and man convicted of dangerous driving (and a serial nuisance to his local community to boot) released after just 1 month - because of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights: 'The right to family life':

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1391512/Burglar-claimed-jail-sentence-infringed-childrens-human-rights-freed.html

Not forgetting 'cat-gate' - the story of the Bolivian national who stayed in Britiain because of the Human Rights Act. He pleaded that his deportation would be bad for his pet cat and that his pet cat would suffer a deterioration in his quality of life:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2045794/Theresa-May-cat-claim-Truth-Tory-cat-gate-row.html

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bye bye Britain

Post by Tony Bennett on 03.03.13 0:03

@olipet wrote:Speaking from personal experience I can assure all of you above have no idea what life is like in a prison here in the UK. Its not Brazil but it sure isn't pleasant. I don't think prisons as they are, should exist at all. And with reference to 'murderers' who have deliberately taken someone elses life, they are sick and should be in a hospital for the mentally ill. Maybe for life - but not kept in inhumane conditions. We are meant to be a sophisticated country and capital punishment has been abolished. I promise you, that you all would consider lawful human rights if you worked with prisoners or had a loved one in jail - And no, you cannot get a get out of jail free card for having a family - or a cat.

Remember, its not just murderers.

Its young men who are drunk in a fight outside the pub.

And who might kill someone

Its drivers who have been unknowingly reckless.

And might kill someone in the process

Its tragic, tragic crimes of passion.

Oscar Pistorius. Tragic for his frightened girlfriend, that's for sure

Its possessing an ounce of cannabis.

Cannabis-users are a menace on our roads - and possessing an ounce of cannabis often leads on to the regular snorting of cocain and other hard drugs. But, come on, who gets sent to prison for possessing an ounce of cannabis?

Its having such a chaotic upbringing that prison is the only escape.

Hmmm. Lots of people have a chaotic upbringing, and it's certainly sad for them to begn life with such a handicap. But they don't all commit crimes.

Its getting too many points on your licence.

Name me one person who's gone to prison for having too many points on his licence! A three-month driving ban, most likely. Mind you, I could name someone who might go to prison because he made his wife take his 3 points.

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bye bye Britain

Post by olipet on 03.03.13 0:06

Christ I didnt know about that story!
However, reading the whole thing, it does seem a bit much to sentence this guy for 8 months for stealing some chocolate from a rugby tuck shop! The dangerous driving thing when he escaped makes it more understandable but I fail to see how incarceration is going to help in this case - and at our expense!
Much better to think harder about different types of punishment and the benefits they may have.
Clean the streets and wear a tag to ensure he is at home with his 5 children when they need him? For the next 4 years?

olipet

Posts : 76
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bye bye Britain

Post by Tony Bennett on 03.03.13 0:12

@olipet wrote:Christ I didnt know about that story!
However, reading the whole thing, it does seem a bit much to sentence this guy for 8 months for stealing some chocolate from a rugby tuck shop! The dangerous driving thing when he escaped makes it more understandable but I fail to see how incarceration is going to help in this case - and at our expense!
Much better to think harder about different types of punishment and the benefits they may have.
Clean the streets and wear a tag to ensure he is at home with his 5 children when they need him? For the next 4 years?
I would tend to agree with you on alternative forms of community punishment in cases like this, so long as they are tough enough to act as a real deterrent, which is still one of the main purposes of sentencing. I'm not sure Chris Huhne needs to go to prison, either. A big fine would be enough for me.

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bye bye Britain

Post by loopzdaloop on 03.03.13 0:24

Considering we are citizens of a country that is ruled by a corrupt elite whose goal is to get rich through creaming off national assets to support their greedy friends into getting richer...

Then at the same time there are lots of shadowy people making lots of shady deals i am very surprised that people on here then want to remove the only statute which allows us to regain power from the government!

It is through the afforementioned corruption via Alex Woolfall and Gordon Brown that the Mccanns have had all the support that they are getting today!
Highlighting nonsense issues such as 'votes for prisoners' is all part of the divide and rule strategy. Whilst the plebs are distracted by issues such as that the eye is taken off the fact that our electoral system results in an unrepresentative parliament through primarily through the use of first past the post which allows 'safe seats' and the parachuting of people totally disconnected from the local people they puport to serve. Secondarily as revealed by the daily telegraph last week the parasitical socialite Prince Charles who has not only corrupted the duchy of cornwall into being viewed as a 'private estate' whilst at the same time is using the differing laws an legislation afforded to the duchy since medieval times to not pay any tax whatsoever but is also exercising the power of veto over government bills and meddling with legislation! Yet people want to get distracted by the trivialities! If anyone thinks a unitary vote makes any difference they are mistake!

On the flipsde The Human Rights Act has allowed the protection of many vulnerable peope who otherwise would have continued to have had their rights trampled by the machinery of government.
The best thing about the EU court and EU parliament is that the politics of the plastic politicians with the same backgrounds, be it lib, lab or cons are irrelevant to its workings and can't meddle like they do with other things.

Also and most importanty the EU declaration on HRA which the HR is founded upon was drafted by our country! Its a british invention! Sir David Maxwell-Fythe was the lead architect of it with support from a frenchman!

loopzdaloop

Posts : 334
Reputation : 40
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bye bye Britain

Post by olipet on 03.03.13 0:29

I have worked with many, many, many prisoners.

We could all get in a fight and knock someone over on the pavement with a fatality.

We could all drive carelessly for just a second and knock someone over on the pavement with a fatality.

I also know someone who was incarcerated for 2 years for possessing £20 of ecstasy - 1 tablet. The Love Drug. This could be your son - its everywhere, absolutely everywhere up and down the social echelons.

Most people who use cannabis do not go on to use hard drugs. That's a nonsense - a very old fashioned one at that. The real harm that comes from drugs is the fact that it is criminalised. Im certain you agree with that.

There are some extremely harrowing stories from these men in prison.

BUT YES! There are also some horrific men who most definitely should be locked away from society.

Yet, one needs to consider all sides before diving in and pre-judging them all.

That's all really.

olipet

Posts : 76
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bye bye Britain

Post by olipet on 03.03.13 1:00

Yes absolutely agree -

"the human rights act has provided protection for a very many vulnerable people"

the disabled
those in hospitals
asylum seekers
care home residents
those seeking fair trial
those seeking freedom of information
freedom of expression and speech

the list is not exhaustive.

I am supportive of this Act.
The bizarre cases aforementioned when the HRA seems to have been used strangely - are not the norm

olipet

Posts : 76
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-01-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bye bye Britain

Post by loopzdaloop on 03.03.13 1:23

On the same day as this the government announces plans for secret courts hearing at least 15 cases a year where the defendant wont even be allowed to know the evidence against him/her.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2287134/The-march-secret-justice-Minimum-15-court-cases-year-held-closed-doors-despite-promise-rare.html

This and the human rights act are definitly mutually exclusive.
Carter Ruck would love it I bet!

loopzdaloop

Posts : 334
Reputation : 40
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bye bye Britain

Post by tigger on 03.03.13 6:22

@Tony Bennett wrote:Removing us from the arbitrary jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights, if achieved, would cause a national outpouring of joy in the United KIngdom.

Just for starters, we could end the absurd decision that some prisoners have the right to vote - because to deny them the right to vote would breach their human rights.

There are hundreds of murderers walking the streets of Britain, who have complete freedom, when they have ended one of the most fundamental human rights of all - the right to life.

And one of the main reasons so many murderers are able to walk free, often after sickenly short prison terms...is because of the ivory tower pontificating of Human Rights judges in Strasbourg

Excellent idea. People had rights long before the Human Rights Act -adding ever more ridiculous articles to the Act has only had the effect of making lawyers rich. It didn't do anything to create a fairer society, quite the opposite.
How can a convicted murderer/rapist walk the streets, get benefits paid and never have to fear being deported because he would not be treated fairly in his own country? In other words, they are untouchable.
Britain should be able to deport illegal immigrants if only to be fair to the legal immigrants. If they're convicted criminals, they should be sent back to wherever they came from the moment they walk out of court.
Human Rights have resulted in normal hard-working people not being treated fairly in their own country.


____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bye bye Britain

Post by celtclogs on 03.03.13 6:42

Châtelaine wrote:I am flabbergasted with these comments. I would not know of one single case in the Netherlands where criminals walk free because of the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ... So what's so different in the U.K. then? Please enlighten me.

And I think they will be sorry when it's gone

celtclogs

Posts : 78
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-02-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bye bye Britain

Post by aquila on 03.03.13 6:51

I'm on the fence with this. As much as I think it best for UK to leave the EU, with regards to ECHR which is presently in force, I've only really seen negative press. I'd need to see positive outcomes for ordinary citizens which are probably rarely printed in order to have a definite view.

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bye bye Britain

Post by celtclogs on 03.03.13 6:52

@loopzdaloop wrote:Considering we are citizens of a country that is ruled by a corrupt elite whose goal is to get rich through creaming off national assets to support their greedy friends into getting richer...

Then at the same time there are lots of shadowy people making lots of shady deals i am very surprised that people on here then want to remove the only statute which allows us to regain power from the government!

It is through the afforementioned corruption via Alex Woolfall and Gordon Brown that the Mccanns have had all the support that they are getting today!
Highlighting nonsense issues such as 'votes for prisoners' is all part of the divide and rule strategy. Whilst the plebs are distracted by issues such as that the eye is taken off the fact that our electoral system results in an unrepresentative parliament through primarily through the use of first past the post which allows 'safe seats' and the parachuting of people totally disconnected from the local people they puport to serve. Secondarily as revealed by the daily telegraph last week the parasitical socialite Prince Charles who has not only corrupted the duchy of cornwall into being viewed as a 'private estate' whilst at the same time is using the differing laws an legislation afforded to the duchy since medieval times to not pay any tax whatsoever but is also exercising the power of veto over government bills and meddling with legislation! Yet people want to get distracted by the trivialities! If anyone thinks a unitary vote makes any difference they are mistake!

On the flipsde The Human Rights Act has allowed the protection of many vulnerable peope who otherwise would have continued to have had their rights trampled by the machinery of government.
The best thing about the EU court and EU parliament is that the politics of the plastic politicians with the same backgrounds, be it lib, lab or cons are irrelevant to its workings and can't meddle like they do with other things.

Also and most importanty the EU declaration on HRA which the HR is founded upon was drafted by our country! Its a british invention! Sir David Maxwell-Fythe was the lead architect of it with support from a frenchman!


celtclogs

Posts : 78
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-02-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Human Rigjhts Act helps paedophile escape justice

Post by Tony Bennett on 03.03.13 7:19

Paedophile who fled to Britain won't face justice - because of the European Convention on Human Rights:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9362298/Paedophile-spared-extradition-to-US-on-human-rights-grounds.html

He abused young girls - but has got away with his crimes



Paedophile spared extradition to US on human rights grounds

One of America’s most wanted paedophiles has been spared extradition from
Britain by the High Court on human rights grounds.




Shawn Sullivan is now the 10th person in recent years to see their extradition to the US blocked by either the courts or Home Secretary in this country Photo: LONDON MEDIA


By Martin Beckford, Home Affairs
Editor

3:18PM BST 28 Jun 2012

Shawn Sullivan faced spending the rest of his life behind bars under a
controversial sex offenders’ programme in the US, but two senior judges said
this would amount to a “flagrant denial” of his rights.

As a result the 43 year-old – who married a Ministry of Justice official
while in jail on remand – will not be put on trial for abusing three young girls
almost 20 years ago, and can live freely in London.

Sullivan, who has a previous conviction for assaulting two girls in Ireland
and was on an Interpol most-wanted list, is now the 10th person in recent years
to see their extradition to the US blocked by either the courts or Home
Secretary in this country.

Despite this, campaigners insist the treaty is “lop-sided” in favour of
America, and attempts are still being made to block the extradition of alleged
computer hacker Gary McKinnon and Richard O’Dwyer, accused of running a website
that linked to pirated films.

A spokesman for the US Embassy said: “We strongly disagree with the decision
of the court that he should not be extradited to face trial in the U.S.

“Civil commitment is not a penal or criminal sanction; it is rather a means
by which the State can protect the community from dangerous behaviour that the
committed individual is unable to control.”

Sullivan, originally from Fort Benning, Georgia, was accused of raping a 14
year-old girl and sexually molesting two 11 year-olds in Minnesota between 1993
and 1994.

He fled the US as charges were filed against him and moved to Ireland, where
in 1997 he was given a suspended sentence for sexually assaulting two 12
year-old girls.

Sullivan came to London on an Irish passport, using the Gaelic spelling of
his name, and was arrested in Barnes, south-west London, in June 2010, where he
was living with MoJ policy manager Sarah Smith. The couple married in Wandsworth
Prison when he was held on remand, before he was released on bail with an
electronic tag.

Initially a judge agreed to his extradition and the Home Office dismissed his
appeal.

But Sullivan took his case to the High Court earlier this year, with his
lawyers claiming that if he were convicted in the US, he faced being put under a
“civil commitment” order at the end of his jail term that effectively meant he
would be deemed “sexually dangerous” and never released.

The court was told that no one had ever been released from the treatment
programme in Minnesota since it was set up in 1988.

POLL QUESTION: DO YOU THINK SULLIVAN SHOULD HAVE BEENM SENT BACK TO THE U.S.

Thank you for voting!

Yes 88.41% (6,438 votes)

No 11.59% (844 votes)

Total Votes: 7,282

Return To Poll

Initially the US authorities suggested Sullivan would not be put under civil
commitment but later said it was too early to tell.

In a judgment published last week, the High
Court judges said there was a real risk he would be put on the programme, and
that it would breach his right not to suffer loss of liberty without due process
as protected by the European Court of Human Rights.

"It is clear to me that were an order of civil commitment to be made, it
would be a flagrant denial of this appellant's rights under Art. 5.1," Lord
Justice Moses said.

He and Mr Justice Eady gave the US government a final chance to offer
assurances as to Sullivan’s treatment but it declined to do so.

In a note released on Thursday, Lord Justice Moses announced that “the United
States will not provide an assurance” and so the appeal under the 2003
Extradition Act was allowed.

“The appellant will be discharged from the proceedings,” the judge said.

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bye bye Britain

Post by Tony Bennett on 03.03.13 7:58

@loopzdaloop wrote:Also and most importantly the EU declaration on HRA which the HR is founded upon was drafted by our country! Its a British invention! Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe was the lead architect of it with support from a Frenchman!
Well, you are right up to a point, but allow me a few corrections of the above.

First, it wasn't an E.U. declaration, the Europoean Convention on Human Rights was a creation of the Council of Europe, in fact - an entirely separate creation fom the E.U., which wasn't formed until much later.

Second, the British lawyers under Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe certainly had a big hand in drafting the Convention, but to describe Maxwell-Fyfe as the 'lead architect' might be giving him too much credit.

Third, the concept of 'human rights' developed primarily from the homosexual rights movement in Germany:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Human_Rights

and homosexuals were very much the driving force behind devceloping human rights legislation.

One of the main achievements of the human rights movement has been the development of full equality for homosexuals, but the flipside of that is that those who do not subscribe to the view that homosexuals should have full equality have lost rights - hence, for example, the closure of adoption agencies and the de-registration of foster parents who cannot sign up to full homosexual equality

____________________

                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13957
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bye bye Britain

Post by Mrs Beeton on 03.03.13 8:07

I am broadly in favour of the Human Rights Act, despite disagreeing very much with some of the decisions. The Equality Act 2010 protects (in theory)

people who have been discriminated against (less favourable treatment which is comparative ) in terms of employment or services because of a

personal characteristic (e.g. because they are of a different race, or have a disability, are gay, or due to age, relgion or belief, due to gender or

transgender, or pregnancy or maternity).

However for people who have simply been treated disgracefully by a public authority,but not due to discrimination, in some cases the HRA is the only

means of redress and in other cases it gives them another string to their bow. It also means that Public Authorities have to weigh the 'proportionality' of their decisions.

I can recall the case of a local authority in England which employed private detectives to follow parents whom they suspected of lying about where

they lived to get their children into a particular school. This was found to be a breach of the HRA as it was 'disproportionate'. IMO he HRA is not the

monster it's made out to be. Obviously the media is most interested in the controversial decisions.

Mrs Beeton

Posts : 32
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-01-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bye bye Britain

Post by GRACEFUL1 on 03.03.13 8:16

Rights vs. Responsibilities

Human rights are used today to make individualistic claims in the name of ‘Me First’. It is ‘my rights’ that matter, never mind the cost to the community of satisfying them.

God gave the people of Israel Ten Commandments, not the Ten Rights; otherwise they would read a bit like this 'David McIlory'

1. God has the right to be worshipped as the only God.
2. God has the right to ban the use of idols.
3. God has the right not to have His name taken in vain.
4. Human beings have the right to one day off a week to worship God and rest.
5. Parents have the right to be respected by their children.
6. Owners of property have the right not to have it stolen.
7. People have the right not to be murdered.
8. Married people have the right to expect that their marriage vows will be respected by their spouse and others.
9. Judges have the right to expect that witnesses giving evidence to them will be honest.
10. People have the right not to have their spouses, donkeys or other belongings taken away from them and the right that others will not think about doing so.
We should stress the importance of human beings having responsibilities to each other over rights against each other.

GRACEFUL1

Posts : 127
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-01-29
Location : U.K.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bye bye Britain

Post by tigger on 03.03.13 8:21

@celtclogs wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:I am flabbergasted with these comments. I would not know of one single case in the Netherlands where criminals walk free because of the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ... So what's so different in the U.K. then? Please enlighten me.

And I think they will be sorry when it's gone

I do see both your points but still think serious adjustment to the HRA is necessary - if not drawing one up relating specifically to the UK. I don't think it's about criminals walking free, it's about them being allowed to re-offend whilst still illegally present in the country after having served a prison sentence. If one is in the country illegally, commits serious crimes, is convicted and is then able to re-offend whilst living off benefits, forget it. An illegal immigrant may not have a 'nice' life, but theft, murder and rape are choices - not consequences. They have chosen to live in the UK, they may abide by the law.

Here is a potted history of the people who implemented it.


Cherie Booth: (worth reading her hagiography in the bios of Matrix)

She is a founding member of Matrix Chambers in London from which she continues to practise as a barrister.
Matrix was formed in 2000 specialising in human rights law. In January 2010, Booth was alleged to have taken a man's religion into account when sentencing him for assault. The Office for Judicial Complaints released an initial statement saying they had "received a number of complaints in relation to the comments" and that the matter was under investigation.
On 10 June 2010, the OJC released a statement saying that the investigation had "found that Recorder Booth’s observations did not constitute judicial misconduct" and accordingly "no disciplinary action is necessary". However a private letter to the National Secular Society said that the OJC had taken action in the form of "informal advice" from a more senior judge.


Alexander Andrew Mackay Irvine, Baron Irvine of Lairg, PC, QC (born 23 June 1940), known as Derry Irvine, is a British lawyer and political figure who served as Lord Chancellor under his former pupil barrister, Tony Blair.

A highlight of Irvine's period in office was the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into United Kingdom law. Irvine devised a measure to maintain the supremacy of Parliament while allowing judges to declare Acts of Parliament not to be in compliance with the Convention.
In addition to his traditional role of supervising the legal system, in 2001 he gained responsibility for a wide range of constitutional issues, including human rights and freedom of information.
Irvine regularly faced controversy as Lord Chancellor. Soon after his appointment in 1998, the Lord Chancellor's official residence in the Palace of Westminster was redecorated at a cost to the taxpayer of £650,000. Hand-printed wallpaper alone accounted for £59,000.
Much of the criticism devolved on Irvine. Contractors working on the renovations were forced to sign the Official Secrets Act in order to avoid revelations of the expenditure leaking out to the public.Early in 2003 he was awarded a pay rise of £22,691 as a result of a formula designed to keep his salary ahead of that of the Lord Chief Justice. After an outcry he accepted a more modest increase.

From Wiki.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 24
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bye bye Britain

Post by rainbow-fairy on 03.03.13 9:50

@Mrs Beeton wrote:I am broadly in favour of the Human Rights Act, despite disagreeing very much with some of the decisions. The Equality Act 2010 protects (in theory)

people who have been discriminated against (less favourable treatment which is comparative ) in terms of employment or services because of a

personal characteristic (e.g. because they are of a different race, or have a disability, are gay, or due to age, relgion or belief, due to gender or

transgender, or pregnancy or maternity).

However for people who have simply been treated disgracefully by a public authority,but not due to discrimination, in some cases the HRA is the only

means of redress and in other cases it gives them another string to their bow. It also means that Public Authorities have to weigh the 'proportionality' of their decisions.

I can recall the case of a local authority in England which employed private detectives to follow parents whom they suspected of lying about where

they lived to get their children into a particular school. This was found to be a breach of the HRA as it was 'disproportionate'. IMO he HRA is not the

monster it's made out to be. Obviously the media is most interested in the controversial decisions.
Mrs Beeton, I largely agree with you. I have had cause to be glad of the HRA (never used it, but the possibility was there)

My stance on EU is 'get out' HRA, well, maybe we should have similar to the US Constitution?

My main problem with prisons are there are FAR too many people in them who shouldn't be (pensioners who can't pay council tax!), they don't actually rehabilitate and many youngsters who go in for relatively trivial matters often come out with more criminal knowledge and contacts and the prison door then becomes a revolving door. I have friends from 20 years back who could have had good lives but have in all that time spent maybe 6 months max out of prison, then back in again, so sad.

But my biggest beef with prison is that you will mostly get a longer sentence for fiddling your benefit than fiddling with a child. It disgusts me, says a lot about the 'higher levels' of our 'society', and that has little to do with the HRA!

I believe a UK-specific version of the HRA would be most beneficial. I'm a bit of a hippy really, but this 'peace and love across the EU' doesn't work - as individual countries we are all very different.
Example - 24 hour drinking would bring us a 'continental style' stopping binge drinking - er, that worked, didn't it? Not.....

____________________
"Ask the dogs, Sandra" - Gerry McCann to Sandra Felgueiras



Truth is artless and innocent - like the eloquence of nature, it is clothed with simplicity and easy persuasion; always open to investigation and analysis, it seeks exposure because it fears not detection.

NORMAN MACDONALD, Maxims and Moral Reflections.

rainbow-fairy

Posts : 1971
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2011-05-26
Age : 42
Location : going round in circles

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bye bye Britain

Post by plebgate on 03.03.13 10:54

Snipped from Olipet's post re. the benefits of human rights act:


the disabled
those in hospitals
asylum seekers
care home residents
those seeking fair trial
those seeking freedom of information
freedom of expression and speech Rapidly declining in this country as far as I am concerned. Tony Bennett being a good example.

As to those seeking freedom of information - how many times have enquiries led to answers such as cannot be given because of national security issues.

Care home residents hmmmm could have fooled me having read how so many thousands are badly treated year in year out and nobody is ever held accountable.

plebgate

Posts : 5440
Reputation : 1155
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 1 of 2 1, 2  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum