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 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Bye bye Britain

Post by plebgate on 03.03.13 10:59

@GRACEFUL1 wrote: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.

Well said Graceful 1

plebgate

Posts : 5447
Reputation : 1162
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bye bye Britain

Post by Mrs Beeton on 03.03.13 11:17

@rainbow-fairy wrote:
@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.....

I can imagine a UK version of the HRA being 'Human Rights Lite' ! ,i.e. very watered down and the highest court of appeal would of course be the UK Supreme Court. I know this may suit some people, until their rights are at issue of course! I don't know whether we should be in the E.U or out. There are pros and cons. I think there are problems with unfettered mass migration. You get decent people coming to the UK and you also get the crims, who are running away from justice in their own country. Then , with unemployment here, and cuts in benefits, my worry is that some people in the Uk will increasingly scapegoat the migrant workers when it isn't their fault, but they are easy targets.

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 plebgate on 03.03.13 11:28

I have just re-read the catgate story.

You couldn't make it up could ya.

Now if I am ever traced using my ISP I will make sure that before any ruling the sitting judge will take into account my 60 cats, 50 horses, 40 dogs and 75 hamsters. There you are that should keep me posting here safely forever.

plebgate

Posts : 5447
Reputation : 1162
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bye bye Britain

Post by Guest on 03.03.13 12:44

You forgot to mention your goldfish ...

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Bye bye Britain

Post by plebgate on 03.03.13 13:55

Oh thanks for the reminder Chatelaine.

plebgate

Posts : 5447
Reputation : 1162
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bye bye Britain

Post by bobbin on 03.03.13 15:02

@plebgate wrote:Oh thanks for the reminder Chatelaine.

Note to self..... get a good supply of stick insects in.....I intend to carry on expressing my "freedom to think" thoughts.

bobbin

Posts : 2030
Reputation : 119
Join date : 2011-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bye bye Britain

Post by Guest on 03.03.13 16:42

Oh Ye of little Faith

Now ask yourself one question: why is the UK the one and only nation in the Union that imposes superinjunctions?

Do we know what, given an opportunity to decide on that phenomenon, the ECHR would decide?

Somehow I suspect they would quash the judgment imposing it, as being contrary to human rights.

But we'll never find out now, won't we>

Please keep in mind that the Court not only looks at poenal cases, but at civil cases as well. Out here, no one's complaining. On the contrary: the Court is looked upon as a venerable institution, doing a great job.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Bye bye Britain

Post by tigger on 03.03.13 17:06

@ Portia
It's the way it has been incorporated that is imo the main problem. It's up to a judge which one of two options he will favour.

It needs an overhaul at the very least. I don't think injunctions and super injunctions would come under the remit of the ECHR - the person who takes them out can plead to have the human right to do so. A super injunction means no-one is supposed to know about it, so how can one complain if one doesn't even know about it?
From Wiki:
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.
unquote

How does that work then?

____________________
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 bobbin on 03.03.13 17:32

@tigger wrote:@ Portia
It's the way it has been incorporated that is imo the main problem. It's up to a judge which one of two options he will favour.

It needs an overhaul at the very least. I don't think injunctions and super injunctions would come under the remit of the ECHR - the person who takes them out can plead to have the human right to do so. A super injunction means no-one is supposed to know about it, so how can one complain if one doesn't even know about it?
From Wiki:
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.
unquote

How does that work then?

Hi Portia and tigger. If we leave the ECHR, then we fall back onto the UK 1998 Act I presume, which is in line with the United Nations Universal Declaration of HR.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998 (of the UK)
My fear is that Theresa is pulling us out, whereupon UK might align itself more with the USA, so that we will be subject to more of the US Bill of Rights, which has sections coming under serious fire regarding liberties being lost to increased federal rights to increase police and military interventions in civil protest.
It would be good to have a statement from Ms May to clarify exactly why she thinks to take UK out of the ECHR.

bobbin

Posts : 2030
Reputation : 119
Join date : 2011-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Bye bye Britain

Post by tigger on 04.03.13 7:57

I don't really know enough about it all to be honest. I gave my opinion on some aspects. Rainbow-Fairy mentioned the people in jail for not paying council tax.
I've never heard of anyone turn up at the ECHR for that sort of case and I don't think it would be heard.
Re council tax - there should be a website dealing with the ridiculous salaries and quangos they dream up. In the midst of the last recession there was an advert for a job as 'Street naming officer' to join the 'street-naming team' of said council.

But the Catgate is one argument and I also think if a convicted criminal who is in the country illegally cannot be sent back to his own country, what about the human rights of the rest of the people living in GB? A criminal likely to re-offend is left to walk free - that isn't right either.
The problem is that the millions of immigrants have left countries to which they have no allegiance. They do not have the 'my country' ethos that Europe has.

I can give one more example. Afghan 'refugees' in Belgium granted asylum because they'd be killed in their 'own country', used the benefit money to go on long holidays. To Afghanistan.

____________________
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 tigger on 04.03.13 13:19

I forgot to copy this line from Wiki and an earlier post. How does this trick work then?

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.

____________________
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 bobbin on 04.03.13 13:48

@tigger wrote:I forgot to copy this line from Wiki and an earlier post. How does this trick work then?

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.
Initial response is 'what what what?' But then it looks like an open case of confusion. So Parliament can over-rule the ECHR, whilst judges can declare acts not agreeing with ECHR....no I'm lost. Anyone with legal expertise able to shine any light on what this actually means...to the ordinary man in the street.

bobbin

Posts : 2030
Reputation : 119
Join date : 2011-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Human Rights

Post by iluvpelageya on 06.03.13 23:58


Châtelaine on Sat Mar 02, 2013 11:07 pm

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.


I completely agree with you, Châtelaine. I suspect that the UK is different because - apart from the Channel Islands - the UK was not occupied by the Nazis during the Second World War. The British have no idea what it is like to be stripped of their human rights. There are some who do. My father, for example, was a prisoner of war of the Japanese. It means that a cop or an official can demand to see your papers/identity card, even though you showed the same person those documents 45 minutes ago. It means if you are talking or laughing in the queue of a bus stop, you will get a rifle butt between the shoulder blades, and there is nothing you can do about it.

I think this is a perfect example of David Icke's Problem, Reaction, Solution. A few examples of Muslims not being sent to certain countries because they will either be tortured or executed appear in the tabloids. And people are fizzing. What Icke is saying is that the authorities create a problem, and people demand a solution, even though they are giving all their rights away. People here have no conception of human rights. If they did, they would know that if they are giving away someone else's human rights, they are also giving away their own.

But there are a few sane people left in this country who will not allow it to be turned into one giant Japanese prisoner of war camp.

____________________

It was not yet evening. I was tired. I lay down and fell asleep.
In my dream I saw my raven-black stallion dancing uncontrollably, playing tricks beneath the saddle.
Then came an evil wind from the east, which tore the black hat off my wild head.
My yesaul was wise, and interpreted my dream for me.
"Ah," he said, "you are going to lose your wild head."

iluvpelageya

Posts : 28
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-03-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 2 Previous  1, 2

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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