FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > Human Rights Legistlation
Human Rights Legistlation
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
Used by some politicians and certain sections of the media as a 'stick' to attack the European Union with, my question is simple.....what specific issues do you have with current human rights legislation?
What, if anything, about the whole 'human rights' piece would you actually want to change?
Some people struggle to debate human rights without making it an argument about Europe. With respect, I hope you choose to leave that to the other thread. This is not a question about Europe, I'm specifically interested in your opinion of where we are today on human rights. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
I wouldn't change it for the UK as it stands at the moment. Re_iew is always good.
The only thing I would change is to make the UN Convention the Rights of the Child mandatory for all UN signatories. America, Somalia and South Sudan refuse to sign and give children basic human rights. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *iewMan
over a year ago
Forum Mod Angus & Findhorn |
not sure of how to say it or which piece of legislation it sits in but
if someone demonstrates a hatred for this country and they have been given asylum, it should be up to this government to send them back to where they came from.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
the only issue I have with human rights legistlation is in regards to asylum requests.... and I do feel that you should apply for asylum from outside the country...
you should have to go to the nearest embassy/consulate... which is what you have to do for countries such as the us,canada, australia for example...
it shouldn't be a case of fighting to get people who's cases have been refused out of the country, as opposed to letting those who do have a legitimate case in..... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"the only issue I have with human rights legistlation is in regards to asylum requests.... and I do feel that you should apply for asylum from outside the country...
you should have to go to the nearest embassy/consulate... which is what you have to do for countries such as the us,canada, australia for example...
it shouldn't be a case of fighting to get people who's cases have been refused out of the country, as opposed to letting those who do have a legitimate case in....."
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"the only issue I have with human rights legistlation is in regards to asylum requests.... and I do feel that you should apply for asylum from outside the country...
you should have to go to the nearest embassy/consulate... which is what you have to do for countries such as the us,canada, australia for example...
it shouldn't be a case of fighting to get people who's cases have been refused out of the country, as opposed to letting those who do have a legitimate case in....."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The EU-bashing is particularly since the European Court of Human Rights isn't an arm of the EU, it was established by the Council of Europe which is completely separate from the EU. Not to mention that Britain was one of the leading countries in establishing it, with enthusiatic support from Churchill himself. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I don't think the rights of the individual should out weigh the rights of the many
Ie if a person or persons or persons are a threat to this country and are foreign nationals I don't think it unreasonable to remove them |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Not sure it would make much difference if people were exceed to apply from outside the country. You're probably not too fussed on paperwork if you've managed to sneak your way across to an island.
I'd happily swap most of them for the ungrateful people who moan about how shit our country is but contribute little more than saggy sofas.
As for the human rights act we just need to man up a bit with things like the nonsense of deporting known scum. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"The only issue I have is as it has already been stated before, asylum/extradition processes. "
The Human Rights in these cases is the "well founded fear of persecution" or sometimes the rights of the child where there are children linked to that person.
The cases are heard in court, not parliament, and we look to courts to protect all of our legal rights not just the human rights ones. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I don't think the rights of the individual should out weigh the rights of the many
Ie if a person or persons or persons are a threat to this country and are foreign nationals I don't think it unreasonable to remove them "
How should it be decided whether or not they are 'a threat to this country', do you believe in the premise of being innocent until proven guilty? Should they be charged and put before our courts in order to determine their guilt of being a threat before being deported? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *iewMan
over a year ago
Forum Mod Angus & Findhorn |
"I don't think the rights of the individual should out weigh the rights of the many
Ie if a person or persons or persons are a threat to this country and are foreign nationals I don't think it unreasonable to remove them
How should it be decided whether or not they are 'a threat to this country', do you believe in the premise of being innocent until proven guilty? Should they be charged and put before our courts in order to determine their guilt of being a threat before being deported?"
full judicial process |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Human rights need to be clarified and then stuck to it.
How can internet access be a human right?
Having a cat is not constitute a human right a family life.
There are worse breaches of human rights in thus country that go unnoticed, like arranged marriages and religious kangaroo courts. In UK all citizens are equal no matter what race or sex, these things are the important bit.
Its simple, common sense please if it's wrong it wrong, if a blooming do-godder thinks it's wrong and it actually isn't wrong we shouldn't be forced to accept it!
Rant over
Voting! That a civil liberty in the country you a citizen of.
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"I don't think the rights of the individual should out weigh the rights of the many
............."
That's a commonly held opinion - until the person holding that opinion becomes the said individual. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
the Torrie's destroying this one great nation
make the rich richer
an the poor poorer
slavery comes into force next year well done Torrie's you will lose the next the next election |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"the Torrie's destroying this one great nation
make the rich richer
an the poor poorer
slavery comes into force next year well done Torrie's you will lose the next the next election "
May 2015, some people may have to bite the bullet and vote UKIP in order to keep the Tories out. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"the only issue I have with human rights legistlation is in regards to asylum requests.... and I do feel that you should apply for asylum from outside the country...
you should have to go to the nearest embassy/consulate... which is what you have to do for countries such as the us,canada, australia for example...
it shouldn't be a case of fighting to get people who's cases have been refused out of the country, as opposed to letting those who do have a legitimate case in....."
Lets face it US Canada & Australia are made up of immigrants so why should anyone apply to go there! would the Soux or Aborigine's have a say. Perhaps Human Rights need to go back in history and correct some issues e.g. Haiti pay back more to France than their health budget a price they still pay for the abolition of slavery |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"the Torrie's destroying this one great nation
make the rich richer
an the poor poorer
slavery comes into force next year well done Torrie's you will lose the next the next election "
Don't forget it was Labour that sold our once great nation down the river and filled it with immigrants changing the country forever.
Don't forget it was Labour that sold our gold reserves at a knock down prices and borrowed all the money we can't afford to pay back.
And don't forget it was Labour that passed laws allowing the likes of Cherie Blair and other parasitic lawyers to make a fortune from representing illegal immigrants. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"the only issue I have with human rights legistlation is in regards to asylum requests.... and I do feel that you should apply for asylum from outside the country...
you should have to go to the nearest embassy/consulate... which is what you have to do for countries such as the us,canada, australia for example...
it shouldn't be a case of fighting to get people who's cases have been refused out of the country, as opposed to letting those who do have a legitimate case in....."
Clearly most do apply for asylum from outside the country, a fair few Syrians are currently applying, Germany has just accepted a sizeable number and we probably will too.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but the thrust behind your post is more about those who have sneaked in and then apply. If that is the case, are you suggesting that they should not be afforded the rights of an appeals process, etc? Should any decision be solely left to an individual civil servant? Should they be afforded any rights? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"the Torrie's destroying this one great nation
make the rich richer
an the poor poorer
slavery comes into force next year well done Torrie's you will lose the next the next election
Don't forget it was Labour that sold our once great nation down the river and filled it with immigrants changing the country forever.
Don't forget it was Labour that sold our gold reserves at a knock down prices and borrowed all the money we can't afford to pay back.
And don't forget it was Labour that passed laws allowing the likes of Cherie Blair and other parasitic lawyers to make a fortune from representing illegal immigrants."
Thank you both for your posts, whilst I'm grateful for your contribution, i am asking for your opinion on human rights legislation, not your political leanings.
Just a courteous reminder... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I don't think the rights of the individual should out weigh the rights of the many
.............
That's a commonly held opinion - until the person holding that opinion becomes the said individual."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"the only issue I have with human rights legistlation is in regards to asylum requests.... and I do feel that you should apply for asylum from outside the country...
you should have to go to the nearest embassy/consulate... which is what you have to do for countries such as the us,canada, australia for example...
................ "
That's how its supposed to work just now.
The problems arise when the asylum seekers turns up at (say) the British Embassy in, to quote you-know-who Bongo Bongo Land.
The embassy staff might reasonably point out that the asylum seeker can't be at much risk if s/he is prepared to walk into another country's embassy - which is being watched by the Bongo Bongo Land secret police.
What I firmly believe is that an asylum seeker should seek safety in the first country they arrive in after fleeing their own.
Travelling halfway across the world just to get somewhere where English is spoken or the health service is really good ought not to cut it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The principle for the founding of the ECHR and what it should stand for are undeniable. No sane person would want to see a repeat of what happened in Nazi Germany happen again. But some how, we have lost sight of what it should be for.
If someone comes to this country either as an immigrant or an asylum seeker, they should obey the law of the land. If they don't, they should expect to be deported. The fact they have had a d*unken one night stand and fathered a child which they never see hardly makes their deportation a breach of their human right to a family life. If they are that bothered... they can take their bastard children with them!
There will always be conflict between different aspects of human rights law. A good example is the Christian couple who refused to allow 2 gay men to stay in their B&B because of their Religious _iews. What is more important? The right to religious freedom or the right not to be discriminated against on grounds of sexuality?
Whatever the answer, it needs to be applied fairly without discrimination. There are religions represented in this country that openly preach that all infidels should burn in hell and all homosexuals should too yet nothing is done. If I preached that every member of their religion should burn in hell, I would be arrested for a racially motivated hate crime. Human rights is supposed to be about fairness and equality... when we are all treated equally and fairly then it has achieved it's aims but not until then.
Rant over... again
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Human rights need to be clarified and then stuck to it.
How can internet access be a human right?
Having a cat is not constitute a human right a family life.
There are worse breaches of human rights in thus country that go unnoticed, like arranged marriages and religious kangaroo courts. In UK all citizens are equal no matter what race or sex, these things are the important bit.
Its simple, common sense please if it's wrong it wrong, if a blooming do-godder thinks it's wrong and it actually isn't wrong we shouldn't be forced to accept it!
Rant over
Voting! That a civil liberty in the country you a citizen of.
"
Who decides if it's wrong? The Court of Common Sense? You and your mates in the pub? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The principle for the founding of the ECHR and what it should stand for are undeniable. No sane person would want to see a repeat of what happened in Nazi Germany happen again. But some how, we have lost sight of what it should be for.
If someone comes to this country either as an immigrant or an asylum seeker, they should obey the law of the land. If they don't, they should expect to be deported. The fact they have had a d*unken one night stand and fathered a child which they never see hardly makes their deportation a breach of their human right to a family life. If they are that bothered... they can take their bastard children with them!
There will always be conflict between different aspects of human rights law. A good example is the Christian couple who refused to allow 2 gay men to stay in their B&B because of their Religious _iews. What is more important? The right to religious freedom or the right not to be discriminated against on grounds of sexuality?
Whatever the answer, it needs to be applied fairly without discrimination. There are religions represented in this country that openly preach that all infidels should burn in hell and all homosexuals should too yet nothing is done. If I preached that every member of their religion should burn in hell, I would be arrested for a racially motivated hate crime. Human rights is supposed to be about fairness and equality... when we are all treated equally and fairly then it has achieved it's aims but not until then.
Rant over... again
"
That is so offensive, as a mixed race person. You are entitled to your opinion but I'm not a bastard I have a mother and father.. however if everything was paid back that was robbed from the so called "Commonwealth" there would not be a immigrants/asylum problem. However this would put UK GNDP on about $2 per capita same as Nigeria. Not all history is taught at school just the WW1&2 but nothing about the British Empire and robbed resources and lands. If that was to happen post Millennium there would be an global outcry.
As to your point on religion. Religion can be a race issue not many question the Catholic church very strong in the UK. Catholicism is one of the biggest harbourer of kiddy fiddlers, oppressors of women and encourage aids to be spread through by not wearing condoms. All extreme religion's and beliefs are wrong.
By the way a feminist socialist, law abiding proud to be black British atheist |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"the Torrie's destroying this one great nation
make the rich richer
an the poor poorer
slavery comes into force next year well done Torrie's you will lose the next the next election "
and labour did such a terrific job for us all in 13 years under the bliar/brown regime?,you got to be joking!.
look at ed balls for instance last week telling us of the folly of the proposed HS2 rail,it was his government that insigated that particular folly when in power,strange that after the disasterous decisions that they made the are on this side of the fence now telling us what the current government should be doing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obbygggMan
over a year ago
Birmingham |
"The principle for the founding of the ECHR and what it should stand for are undeniable. No sane person would want to see a repeat of what happened in Nazi Germany happen again. But some how, we have lost sight of what it should be for.
If someone comes to this country either as an immigrant or an asylum seeker, they should obey the law of the land. If they don't, they should expect to be deported. The fact they have had a d*unken one night stand and fathered a child which they never see hardly makes their deportation a breach of their human right to a family life. If they are that bothered... they can take their bastard children with them!
There will always be conflict between different aspects of human rights law. A good example is the Christian couple who refused to allow 2 gay men to stay in their B&B because of their Religious _iews. What is more important? The right to religious freedom or the right not to be discriminated against on grounds of sexuality?
Whatever the answer, it needs to be applied fairly without discrimination. There are religions represented in this country that openly preach that all infidels should burn in hell and all homosexuals should too yet nothing is done. If I preached that every member of their religion should burn in hell, I would be arrested for a racially motivated hate crime. Human rights is supposed to be about fairness and equality... when we are all treated equally and fairly then it has achieved it's aims but not until then.
Rant over... again
That is so offensive, as a mixed race person. You are entitled to your opinion but I'm not a bastard I have a mother and father.. however if everything was paid back that was robbed from the so called "Commonwealth" there would not be a immigrants/asylum problem. However this would put UK GNDP on about $2 per capita same as Nigeria. Not all history is taught at school just the WW1&2 but nothing about the British Empire and robbed resources and lands. If that was to happen post Millennium there would be an global outcry.
As to your point on religion. Religion can be a race issue not many question the Catholic church very strong in the UK. Catholicism is one of the biggest harbourer of kiddy fiddlers, oppressors of women and encourage aids to be spread through by not wearing condoms. All extreme religion's and beliefs are wrong.
By the way a feminist socialist, law abiding proud to be black British atheist "
How can religion be a race issue? The 2 are distinct. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The principle for the founding of the ECHR and what it should stand for are undeniable. No sane person would want to see a repeat of what happened in Nazi Germany happen again. But some how, we have lost sight of what it should be for.
If someone comes to this country either as an immigrant or an asylum seeker, they should obey the law of the land. If they don't, they should expect to be deported. The fact they have had a d*unken one night stand and fathered a child which they never see hardly makes their deportation a breach of their human right to a family life. If they are that bothered... they can take their bastard children with them!
There will always be conflict between different aspects of human rights law. A good example is the Christian couple who refused to allow 2 gay men to stay in their B&B because of their Religious _iews. What is more important? The right to religious freedom or the right not to be discriminated against on grounds of sexuality?
Whatever the answer, it needs to be applied fairly without discrimination. There are religions represented in this country that openly preach that all infidels should burn in hell and all homosexuals should too yet nothing is done. If I preached that every member of their religion should burn in hell, I would be arrested for a racially motivated hate crime. Human rights is supposed to be about fairness and equality... when we are all treated equally and fairly then it has achieved it's aims but not until then.
Rant over... again
"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The principle for the founding of the ECHR and what it should stand for are undeniable. No sane person would want to see a repeat of what happened in Nazi Germany happen again. But some how, we have lost sight of what it should be for.
If someone comes to this country either as an immigrant or an asylum seeker, they should obey the law of the land. If they don't, they should expect to be deported. The fact they have had a d*unken one night stand and fathered a child which they never see hardly makes their deportation a breach of their human right to a family life. If they are that bothered... they can take their bastard children with them!
There will always be conflict between different aspects of human rights law. A good example is the Christian couple who refused to allow 2 gay men to stay in their B&B because of their Religious _iews. What is more important? The right to religious freedom or the right not to be discriminated against on grounds of sexuality?
Whatever the answer, it needs to be applied fairly without discrimination. There are religions represented in this country that openly preach that all infidels should burn in hell and all homosexuals should too yet nothing is done. If I preached that every member of their religion should burn in hell, I would be arrested for a racially motivated hate crime. Human rights is supposed to be about fairness and equality... when we are all treated equally and fairly then it has achieved it's aims but not until then.
Rant over... again
That is so offensive, as a mixed race person. You are entitled to your opinion but I'm not a bastard I have a mother and father.. however if everything was paid back that was robbed from the so called "Commonwealth" there would not be a immigrants/asylum problem. However this would put UK GNDP on about $2 per capita same as Nigeria. Not all history is taught at school just the WW1&2 but nothing about the British Empire and robbed resources and lands. If that was to happen post Millennium there would be an global outcry.
As to your point on religion. Religion can be a race issue not many question the Catholic church very strong in the UK. Catholicism is one of the biggest harbourer of kiddy fiddlers, oppressors of women and encourage aids to be spread through by not wearing condoms. All extreme religion's and beliefs are wrong.
By the way a feminist socialist, law abiding proud to be black British atheist How can religion be a race issue? The 2 are distinct."
Of course it is:
Islam is mainly in the middle east spread to Africa through trade in the early centauries
Catholicism started in Europe and spread to South America through the slave trade
Buddhists Asia
There might be converts but I'm yet to meet an Aboriginal Armish or Chinese Jew. We can only live in hope |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think the human rights laws should be applied to legitimate law abiding citizens of the uk only, illegal immigrants should be incarcerated till their claim has been assessed, they should be treated as fairly as a criminal, as they have broken the law by entering the U.K. Illegally. Tho kept separate from regular prisoners.
Regular prisoners allowed to be warm when it's cold, cool when it's hot, fed decent quality food when they're hungry & watered clean water when they're thirsty!
Made to work, producing something usefull for the country, Nothing else! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obbygggMan
over a year ago
Birmingham |
"The principle for the founding of the ECHR and what it should stand for are undeniable. No sane person would want to see a repeat of what happened in Nazi Germany happen again. But some how, we have lost sight of what it should be for.
If someone comes to this country either as an immigrant or an asylum seeker, they should obey the law of the land. If they don't, they should expect to be deported. The fact they have had a d*unken one night stand and fathered a child which they never see hardly makes their deportation a breach of their human right to a family life. If they are that bothered... they can take their bastard children with them!
There will always be conflict between different aspects of human rights law. A good example is the Christian couple who refused to allow 2 gay men to stay in their B&B because of their Religious _iews. What is more important? The right to religious freedom or the right not to be discriminated against on grounds of sexuality?
Whatever the answer, it needs to be applied fairly without discrimination. There are religions represented in this country that openly preach that all infidels should burn in hell and all homosexuals should too yet nothing is done. If I preached that every member of their religion should burn in hell, I would be arrested for a racially motivated hate crime. Human rights is supposed to be about fairness and equality... when we are all treated equally and fairly then it has achieved it's aims but not until then.
Rant over... again
That is so offensive, as a mixed race person. You are entitled to your opinion but I'm not a bastard I have a mother and father.. however if everything was paid back that was robbed from the so called "Commonwealth" there would not be a immigrants/asylum problem. However this would put UK GNDP on about $2 per capita same as Nigeria. Not all history is taught at school just the WW1&2 but nothing about the British Empire and robbed resources and lands. If that was to happen post Millennium there would be an global outcry.
As to your point on religion. Religion can be a race issue not many question the Catholic church very strong in the UK. Catholicism is one of the biggest harbourer of kiddy fiddlers, oppressors of women and encourage aids to be spread through by not wearing condoms. All extreme religion's and beliefs are wrong.
By the way a feminist socialist, law abiding proud to be black British atheist How can religion be a race issue? The 2 are distinct.
Of course it is:
Islam is mainly in the middle east spread to Africa through trade in the early centauries
Catholicism started in Europe and spread to South America through the slave trade
Buddhists Asia
There might be converts but I'm yet to meet an Aboriginal Armish or Chinese Jew. We can only live in hope"
Black,white and yellow Jews,Christians and Muslims aren't there?Or am I mistaken? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obbygggMan
over a year ago
Birmingham |
"the Torrie's destroying this one great nation
make the rich richer
an the poor poorer
slavery comes into force next year well done Torrie's you will lose the next the next election
and labour did such a terrific job for us all in 13 years under the bliar/brown regime?,you got to be joking!.
look at ed balls for instance last week telling us of the folly of the proposed HS2 rail,it was his government that insigated that particular folly when in power,strange that after the disasterous decisions that they made the are on this side of the fence now telling us what the current government should be doing."
Labour also introduced the ATOS fit for work test. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
What about one's right to choose when to end one's life, for those who have degenerating medical/physical conditions with no hope of improvement?
We treat our pets far better in that respect, by being able to end their suffering humanely.
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The principle for the founding of the ECHR and what it should stand for are undeniable. No sane person would want to see a repeat of what happened in Nazi Germany happen again. But some how, we have lost sight of what it should be for.
If someone comes to this country either as an immigrant or an asylum seeker, they should obey the law of the land. If they don't, they should expect to be deported. The fact they have had a d*unken one night stand and fathered a child which they never see hardly makes their deportation a breach of their human right to a family life. If they are that bothered... they can take their bastard children with them!
There will always be conflict between different aspects of human rights law. A good example is the Christian couple who refused to allow 2 gay men to stay in their B&B because of their Religious _iews. What is more important? The right to religious freedom or the right not to be discriminated against on grounds of sexuality?
Whatever the answer, it needs to be applied fairly without discrimination. There are religions represented in this country that openly preach that all infidels should burn in hell and all homosexuals should too yet nothing is done. If I preached that every member of their religion should burn in hell, I would be arrested for a racially motivated hate crime. Human rights is supposed to be about fairness and equality... when we are all treated equally and fairly then it has achieved it's aims but not until then.
Rant over... again
That is so offensive, as a mixed race person. You are entitled to your opinion but I'm not a bastard I have a mother and father.. however if everything was paid back that was robbed from the so called "Commonwealth" there would not be a immigrants/asylum problem. However this would put UK GNDP on about $2 per capita same as Nigeria. Not all history is taught at school just the WW1&2 but nothing about the British Empire and robbed resources and lands. If that was to happen post Millennium there would be an global outcry.
As to your point on religion. Religion can be a race issue not many question the Catholic church very strong in the UK. Catholicism is one of the biggest harbourer of kiddy fiddlers, oppressors of women and encourage aids to be spread through by not wearing condoms. All extreme religion's and beliefs are wrong.
By the way a feminist socialist, law abiding proud to be black British atheist How can religion be a race issue? The 2 are distinct.
Of course it is:
Islam is mainly in the middle east spread to Africa through trade in the early centauries
Catholicism started in Europe and spread to South America through the slave trade
Buddhists Asia
There might be converts but I'm yet to meet an Aboriginal Armish or Chinese Jew. We can only live in hopeBlack,white and yellow Jews,Christians and Muslims aren't there?Or am I mistaken?"
Race is not about colour agreed we did say there are converts |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"That is so offensive, as a mixed race person. You are entitled to your opinion but I'm not a bastard I have a mother and father.. however if everything was paid back that was robbed from the so called "Commonwealth" there would not be a immigrants/asylum problem. However this would put UK GNDP on about $2 per capita same as Nigeria. Not all history is taught at school just the WW1&2 but nothing about the British Empire and robbed resources and lands. If that was to happen post Millennium there would be an global outcry.
As to your point on religion. Religion can be a race issue not many question the Catholic church very strong in the UK. Catholicism is one of the biggest harbourer of kiddy fiddlers, oppressors of women and encourage aids to be spread through by not wearing condoms. All extreme religion's and beliefs are wrong.
By the way a feminist socialist, law abiding proud to be black British atheist "
Please try actually reading what I said. I did not say that the offspring of all immigrants are bastards. I said that if an immigrant or asylum seeker fathered an illigitimate child that they had no interest in being a parent to, they should not be allowed to claim their human right to a family life to avoid deportation for breaking the law.
And incidentally, if you had read what I was saying, it is not immigrants from the Commonwealth I was talking about unless Eastern Europe has sneaked in under the radar.
Oh and by the way, I think you will find it was the Empire not the Commonwealth that did all that you alledge. But I am not going to apologise for that. The world was a very different place 150 years ago and people lived their lives differently. Or maybe you would like us to apologise for making the dinosaurs extinct too, maybe pay a bit of compo to people who suffered for years under the illusion that the world was flat.
I used Religion and sexuality as a way to illustrate a point and make an example. There is good and bad in all things, religion included.
And as a socialist, surely you would support my right to free speech or are you a maxist masquerading as a socialist and only in favour of free speech if it fits in with your left wing ideology? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I don't think the rights of the individual should out weigh the rights of the many
Ie if a person or persons or persons are a threat to this country and are foreign nationals I don't think it unreasonable to remove them
How should it be decided whether or not they are 'a threat to this country', do you believe in the premise of being innocent until proven guilty? Should they be charged and put before our courts in order to determine their guilt of being a threat before being deported?
full judicial process "
I couldn't agree with you more. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"What about one's right to choose when to end one's life, for those who have degenerating medical/physical conditions with no hope of improvement?
We treat our pets far better in that respect, by being able to end their suffering humanely.
"
That's a very good point. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I think the human rights laws should be applied to legitimate law abiding citizens of the uk only, illegal immigrants should be incarcerated till their claim has been assessed, they should be treated as fairly as a criminal, as they have broken the law by entering the U.K. Illegally. Tho kept separate from regular prisoners.
Regular prisoners allowed to be warm when it's cold, cool when it's hot, fed decent quality food when they're hungry & watered clean water when they're thirsty!
Made to work, producing something usefull for the country, Nothing else!"
Do you think that would encourage illegal immigrants to stay underground and off the radar? Why would they come forward and apply for the right to stay?
If we did decide to incarcerate all of them do you think we can afford the new prisons required, the cost of keeping them in?
Do we lock up their kids too? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"What about one's right to choose when to end one's life, for those who have degenerating medical/physical conditions with no hope of improvement?
We treat our pets far better in that respect, by being able to end their suffering humanely.
"
Pets can't vote.
Whilst older people are more likely to vote than any other age group, I doubt the laws euthanasia on will change.
Factor in the inevitable opposition from the churches and it recedes further into the distance. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
It does seem on balance that there isn't actually very much that most people would change about the actual human rights legislation and yet for some it still keeps getting the blame for other problems we have like poor border controls, an overly bureaucratic civil service and a clogged up court system.
If you believe in innocent until proven guilty, full judicial re_iew and that people should have basic rights then it's difficult when asked to be specific about what you'd change about the actual legistlation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
In answer to the OP I have a few issues.
1. That we do not have the right to remove anyone who enters this country legally or with the intention of damaging this country or its people if they are at risk of suffering human rights abuses if removed!
2. That criminals have more rights than their victims.
3. That ethnic, religious and sexual minorities can use human rights laws to subvert the laws that apply to the rest of us.
4. That some employees can use the same laws to get preferential treatment because of the above.
I fully support human rights for all. but not enhanced human rights for some at the expense of the majority, as we have now. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
" The fact they have had a d*unken one night stand and fathered a child which they never see hardly makes their deportation a breach of their human right to a family life. If they are that bothered... they can take their bastard children with them!
That is so offensive, as a mixed race person. You are entitled to your opinion but I'm not a bastard I have a mother and father.. "
Just isolated the part of the first post that the second is so offended with.
To the second poster:
Why are you offended that it should be pointed out that some illegal immigrants deliberately make British women pregnant then claim the right to stay because they have fathered a child when there is no marriage or intention to live as a family?
And as far as I am aware the definition of a bastard is one born outside of marriage, is that what offends you? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"What about one's right to choose when to end one's life, for those who have degenerating medical/physical conditions with no hope of improvement?
We treat our pets far better in that respect, by being able to end their suffering humanely.
"
Here, here, I have no idea why this isn't debated, do-gooders having too much say again. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I have no idea why this isn't debated, do-gooders having too much say again. "
It has been debated in the House of Lords quite a few times, but various Bills have been rejected/put on ice. Dying in Dignity is always strapped for cash - lobbying costs money. Because it's such a sensitive subject, no government wants to touch it; it could cost them votes, see. Besides - those in power can easily afford a trip to Switzerland anyway, so it doesn't affect them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Funny, lot of chat, but no one seems to mention they are HUMAN rights.
Unless people here don't think asylum seekers and immigrants (legal or illegal) are humans, I really can't see what the issue is ...
For those that love to bash human rights, there really is just one question. What human right will YOU give up. Because that's what you are doing. If you take a HUMAN right away from immigrants, you take it away from yourself.
Also, remember that these rights, whilst universal, are not absolute. The right to freedom, for example can be taken away.
By a COURT.
A lot of the more sensationalist Daily Mail headlines (and I note with interest a few posters here have swallowed the misinformation and not checked the facts) arise from instances where the government tries to remove peoples rights WITHOUT due process.
Now if the folks who want to scrap human rights are happy to live in a country where the government can go around taking away physical freedom, freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of worship, freedom of ownership without a judicial process, that's fine. But I suggest they move to a country that's more suited to them because it sure as hell ain't Britain. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
my biggest issue with the human rights plea is that it is beeing used by prisoners to sue, if your a prisoner youve shown dissregard for society so why should it then protect you, or give you financial gain |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don't think the rights of the individual should out weigh the rights of the many
.............
That's a commonly held opinion - until the person holding that opinion becomes the said individual.
"
An individual would always have some rights , as do criminals
The rights of individuals are taken where the courts for instance deem prison and the right to a persons freedom of movement are removed for the good of the many
I'm sure the people in prison get rights as in not to be tortured for instance |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I don't think the rights of the individual should out weigh the rights of the many
Ie if a person or persons or persons are a threat to this country and are foreign nationals I don't think it unreasonable to remove them
How should it be decided whether or not they are 'a threat to this country', do you believe in the premise of being innocent until proven guilty? Should they be charged and put before our courts in order to determine their guilt of being a threat before being deported?"
Is that not the law of this country ?
Then however when the laws of this country have decided on action to be taken people from outside the uk tell us no your not doing that . No matter what the cost to this country
I do think illegals should be removed a clue for you there is illegal ! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"my biggest issue with the human rights plea is that it is beeing used by prisoners to sue, if your a prisoner youve shown dissregard for society so why should it then protect you, or give you financial gain"
Are prisoners not humans ? Just remember all a criminal is, is what the state says it is. You may feel smug and rather pleased with yourself right now. But what happens if tomorrow the government introduces a law which makes YOU a criminal. And before you give a little "oh as if !" giggle, just remember what this government is doing to ram it's morality down our throats. I wouldn't mind betting that somewhere down the line there's a tweak to the ISP filtering legislation which will make it a criminal offence to have an unfiltered ISP connection in a house with children (remember "think of the children"). All of a sudden you could become the very criminal you took the rights of. Then don't bleat to me when you are treated worse than an animal. In an unheated cell. With one cold mean a day. Subject to beatings, with no access to books, no chance to study.
Still want to take those rights from prisoners ? We've already taken their liberty.
People need to study history, and understand where we came from. The present is not some magical time which "just happened". It's a continuum going back forever, and a path we could go back down again. Why do you think we got Magna Carta, and the Bill of Rights ? There is no difference whatsoever between the people of 1215 and the people today. None whatsoever. Not a scintilla. Yes we may *know* more. But putting an iPhone in someones hand doesn't improve their humanity in any way shape or form. They are still human, and prey to the same virtues - and vices - as always. And it's to protect ALL of humanity we need the concept of human rights.
I make no apologies for quoting this, as it can never, ever be said too often:
"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me."
so you want to replace "communist" with "prisoner" ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Funny, lot of chat, but no one seems to mention they are HUMAN rights.
Unless people here don't think asylum seekers and immigrants (legal or illegal) are humans, I really can't see what the issue is ...
For those that love to bash human rights, there really is just one question. What human right will YOU give up. Because that's what you are doing. If you take a HUMAN right away from immigrants, you take it away from yourself.
Also, remember that these rights, whilst universal, are not absolute. The right to freedom, for example can be taken away.
By a COURT.
A lot of the more sensationalist Daily Mail headlines (and I note with interest a few posters here have swallowed the misinformation and not checked the facts) arise from instances where the government tries to remove peoples rights WITHOUT due process.
Now if the folks who want to scrap human rights are happy to live in a country where the government can go around taking away physical freedom, freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of worship, freedom of ownership without a judicial process, that's fine. But I suggest they move to a country that's more suited to them because it sure as hell ain't Britain."
funny I hear this argument quite often and although having some validity is not without faults.
I can name one or two "human rights" that I would happily give up...
The right NOT to carry a bio-metric ID card and being on a national database. The only people who benefit from there not being both of the above are criminals! But I guess its our "human right" to not give ourselves the best protection against criminals available.
And I would definitely give up the right to support illegal immigrants and their lawyers while they spend years playing whakamole with our judicial system starting with the "I've burned all my documents so you cant extradite me because you dont know where I'm from". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I can name one or two "human rights" that I would happily give up...
The right NOT to carry a bio-metric ID card and being on a national database. The only people who benefit from there not being both of the above are criminals! But I guess its our "human right" to not give ourselves the best protection against criminals available.
And I would definitely give up the right to support illegal immigrants and their lawyers while they spend years playing whakamole with our judicial system starting with the "I've burned all my documents so you cant extradite me because you dont know where I'm from". "
Could you kindly post a link to the document where these "rights" are published, please ? I'd rather it wasn't a Daily Mail article though. Maybe a government website ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Funny, lot of chat, but no one seems to mention they are HUMAN rights.
Unless people here don't think asylum seekers and immigrants (legal or illegal) are humans, I really can't see what the issue is ...
For those that love to bash human rights, there really is just one question. What human right will YOU give up. Because that's what you are doing. If you take a HUMAN right away from immigrants, you take it away from yourself.
Also, remember that these rights, whilst universal, are not absolute. The right to freedom, for example can be taken away.
By a COURT.
A lot of the more sensationalist Daily Mail headlines (and I note with interest a few posters here have swallowed the misinformation and not checked the facts) arise from instances where the government tries to remove peoples rights WITHOUT due process.
Now if the folks who want to scrap human rights are happy to live in a country where the government can go around taking away physical freedom, freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of worship, freedom of ownership without a judicial process, that's fine. But I suggest they move to a country that's more suited to them because it sure as hell ain't Britain."
Well said |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"my biggest issue with the human rights plea is that it is beeing used by prisoners to sue, if your a prisoner youve shown dissregard for society so why should it then protect you, or give you financial gain
Are prisoners not humans ? Just remember all a criminal is, is what the state says it is. You may feel smug and rather pleased with yourself right now. But what happens if tomorrow the government introduces a law which makes YOU a criminal. And before you give a little "oh as if !" giggle, just remember what this government is doing to ram it's morality down our throats. I wouldn't mind betting that somewhere down the line there's a tweak to the ISP filtering legislation which will make it a criminal offence to have an unfiltered ISP connection in a house with children (remember "think of the children"). All of a sudden you could become the very criminal you took the rights of. Then don't bleat to me when you are treated worse than an animal. In an unheated cell. With one cold mean a day. Subject to beatings, with no access to books, no chance to study.
Still want to take those rights from prisoners ? We've already taken their liberty.
People need to study history, and understand where we came from. The present is not some magical time which "just happened". It's a continuum going back forever, and a path we could go back down again. Why do you think we got Magna Carta, and the Bill of Rights ? There is no difference whatsoever between the people of 1215 and the people today. None whatsoever. Not a scintilla. Yes we may *know* more. But putting an iPhone in someones hand doesn't improve their humanity in any way shape or form. They are still human, and prey to the same virtues - and vices - as always. And it's to protect ALL of humanity we need the concept of human rights.
I make no apologies for quoting this, as it can never, ever be said too often:
"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me."
so you want to replace "communist" with "prisoner" ?"
Very well said. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I don't think the rights of the individual should out weigh the rights of the many
Ie if a person or persons or persons are a threat to this country and are foreign nationals I don't think it unreasonable to remove them
How should it be decided whether or not they are 'a threat to this country', do you believe in the premise of being innocent until proven guilty? Should they be charged and put before our courts in order to determine their guilt of being a threat before being deported?
Is that not the law of this country ?
!"
You'd think it was wouldn't you, it seems only reasonable.
Why then was Abu Qatada never charged with any crime in this country, he was never put before our criminal courts.....why?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I don't think the rights of the individual should out weigh the rights of the many
Ie if a person or persons or persons are a threat to this country and are foreign nationals I don't think it unreasonable to remove them
How should it be decided whether or not they are 'a threat to this country', do you believe in the premise of being innocent until proven guilty? Should they be charged and put before our courts in order to determine their guilt of being a threat before being deported?
Is that not the law of this country ?
!
You'd think it was wouldn't you, it seems only reasonable.
Why then was Abu Qatada never charged with any crime in this country, he was never put before our criminal courts.....why?
"
Ooo ooo ooo I know this ! Because he was a "bad man". We know this because the nice Home Secretary told us. And we'd all be happy to live in a country where what the Home Secretary says trumps what a court of law says.
Wouldn't we ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"In answer to the OP I have a few issues.
1. That we do not have the right to remove anyone who enters this country legally or with the intention of damaging this country or its people if they are at risk of suffering human rights abuses if removed!
2. That criminals have more rights than their victims.
3. That ethnic, religious and sexual minorities can use human rights laws to subvert the laws that apply to the rest of us.
4. That some employees can use the same laws to get preferential treatment because of the above.
I fully support human rights for all. but not enhanced human rights for some at the expense of the majority, as we have now."
1. What are you suggesting here?
2. Please name just one 'human right' a prisoner has that a victim doesn't have.
3 and 4. Please give an example for each of what you mean and how your example leaves the 'rest of us' disadvantaged.
All I'm asking you really is how you'd change the legislation?
Would you send someone to a country to face execution?
Would you cancel all legislation linked to equality and discrimination whether in employment or society as a whole? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"...........
2. Please name just one 'human right' a prisoner has that a victim doesn't have.
............"
A roof, a dry bed and three/ four square meals a day. Proper healthcare. Free dentistry.
There's a lot of Brits don't have any, never mind all, of those. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"...........
2. Please name just one 'human right' a prisoner has that a victim doesn't have.
............
A roof, a dry bed and three/ four square meals a day. Proper healthcare. Free dentistry.
There's a lot of Brits don't have any, never mind all, of those."
Not quite sure what you mean. Are you saying we shouldn't put people in prison ? Or that we should give YOU a free roof, dry bed, 3 meals a day "proper healthcare" (not sure why you feel the NHS is better for prisoners) and free d entistry ?
Oh, and rights are additive not subtractive. So where has your right to a roof etc etc been withdrawn ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"
I can name one or two "human rights" that I would happily give up...
The right NOT to carry a bio-metric ID card and being on a national database. The only people who benefit from there not being both of the above are criminals! But I guess its our "human right" to not give ourselves the best protection against criminals available.
And I would definitely give up the right to support illegal immigrants and their lawyers while they spend years playing whakamole with our judicial system starting with the "I've burned all my documents so you cant extradite me because you dont know where I'm from". "
Enforced ID cards, interesting......what next, maybe a barcode on your forehead?
I agree with you that the due process in assessing a case is sometimes far too long, but who's fault is that?
Just on a purely practical level, where do you propose to send an immigrant who has burned all of his or her documents? (is that linked to human rights legislation?). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"...........
2. Please name just one 'human right' a prisoner has that a victim doesn't have.
............
A roof, a dry bed and three/ four square meals a day. Proper healthcare. Free dentistry.
There's a lot of Brits don't have any, never mind all, of those.
Not quite sure what you mean. Are you saying we shouldn't put people in prison ? Or that we should give YOU a free roof, dry bed, 3 meals a day "proper healthcare" (not sure why you feel the NHS is better for prisoners) and free d entistry ?
Oh, and rights are additive not subtractive. So where has your right to a roof etc etc been withdrawn ?"
I wasn't being judgemental, merely answering the question about "name just one 'human right' a prisoner has that a victim doesn't have."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"...........
2. Please name just one 'human right' a prisoner has that a victim doesn't have.
............
A roof, a dry bed and three/ four square meals a day. Proper healthcare. Free dentistry.
There's a lot of Brits don't have any, never mind all, of those.
Not quite sure what you mean. Are you saying we shouldn't put people in prison ? Or that we should give YOU a free roof, dry bed, 3 meals a day "proper healthcare" (not sure why you feel the NHS is better for prisoners) and free d entistry ?
Oh, and rights are additive not subtractive. So where has your right to a roof etc etc been withdrawn ?
I wasn't being judgemental, merely answering the question about "name just one 'human right' a prisoner has that a victim doesn't have."
"
Not being picky but you haven't answered the question. Well, unless you can cite the wording which you're referring too. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"...........
2. Please name just one 'human right' a prisoner has that a victim doesn't have.
............
A roof, a dry bed and three/ four square meals a day. Proper healthcare. Free dentistry.
There's a lot of Brits don't have any, never mind all, of those."
I think that maybe you're confusing 'rights' and 'choices' a bit here.
When someone loses their freedom they actually lose their choices. They lose their ability to choose to earn and provide for themselves and to chose how to spend their own money.
In prison they cannot choose the roof over their head, what time they eat, they don't get an A la carte menu. They have lost their right to choice.
I don't eat four square meals a day through choice, I do eat in a restaurant 3 or 4 times a week though.
The life of a prisoner is prescribed. Are you suggesting the same should happen to a victim?
If a victim wants the life of a prisoner then all they have to do is commit a serious enough crime.
We provide for prisoners because we've taken away their freedom and their ability to choose to provide for themselves. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I have come up against Human Rights big style !!
My daughter is severely disabled with no speech and i went to my Doctor to ask if she could have a "Hysterectomy" And i was told it was against her Human Rights and that i would have a battle in the courts to sort it out.
My biggest fear in life is that someone could get to her, whether young or older it would still be a huge problem. She can't talk to say even "This hurts when she has a headache or banged her knee"
At the school she goes to there have been lots of other mothers/fathers in the same situation, some of the children are even more profound than my daughter and in fact one was thrown out of court and in the papers.
If the person can-not understand and have no quality of live like you and me, then the HUMAN RIGHTS should be taken away so we can deal with our children to protect them in a way that (Sorry) normal children can be protected.
If they are in prison it should be the same and not be able to apply for compensation etc for their Human Rights.
It's a subject that could go on and on but in my case and my daughters peers it's a real pain in the arse !! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
Correctly or otherwise, I see a roof over your head, a bed to lie on and food in your belly as basic rights in Britain in 2013. Throw in healthcare and tooth doctoring too.
Prisoners have those things.
Many people on the outside don't.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"I have come up against Human Rights big style !!
My daughter is severely disabled with no speech and i went to my Doctor to ask if she could have a "Hysterectomy" And i was told it was against her Human Rights and that i would have a battle in the courts to sort it out.
My biggest fear in life is that someone could get to her, whether young or older it would still be a huge problem. She can't talk to say even "This hurts when she has a headache or banged her knee"
At the school she goes to there have been lots of other mothers/fathers in the same situation, some of the children are even more profound than my daughter and in fact one was thrown out of court and in the papers.
If the person can-not understand and have no quality of live like you and me, then the HUMAN RIGHTS should be taken away so we can deal with our children to protect them in a way that (Sorry) normal children can be protected.
If they are in prison it should be the same and not be able to apply for compensation etc for their Human Rights.
It's a subject that could go on and on but in my case and my daughters peers it's a real pain in the arse !! "
Thank you for your post, what an awful dilemma. Although I try to empathize I can only imagine what you're going through.
That said, matters like this are subject to full judicial re_iew and I personally believe that is the best option we currently have. If not, sadly some of these cases would be open to abuse.
I mean no disrespect to you and yours. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"I have come up against Human Rights big style !!
My daughter is severely disabled with no speech and i went to my Doctor to ask if she could have a "Hysterectomy" And i was told it was against her Human Rights and that i would have a battle in the courts to sort it out.
My biggest fear in life is that someone could get to her, whether young or older it would still be a huge problem. She can't talk to say even "This hurts when she has a headache or banged her knee"
At the school she goes to there have been lots of other mothers/fathers in the same situation, some of the children are even more profound than my daughter and in fact one was thrown out of court and in the papers.
If the person can-not understand and have no quality of live like you and me, then the HUMAN RIGHTS should be taken away so we can deal with our children to protect them in a way that (Sorry) normal children can be protected.
If they are in prison it should be the same and not be able to apply for compensation etc for their Human Rights.
It's a subject that could go on and on but in my case and my daughters peers it's a real pain in the arse !! "
I can't quite understand what your daughter's situation has to do with other people's human rights.
Is it because you feel that if you can't have what you want for her, nobody else should have anything at all? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have come up against Human Rights big style !!
My daughter is severely disabled with no speech and i went to my Doctor to ask if she could have a "Hysterectomy" And i was told it was against her Human Rights and that i would have a battle in the courts to sort it out.
"
Just out of curiosity, is that as far as you took the matter. Or have you researched further ? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Correctly or otherwise, I see a roof over your head, a bed to lie on and food in your belly as basic rights in Britain in 2013. Throw in healthcare and tooth doctoring too.
Prisoners have those things.
Many people on the outside don't.
"
Once again, where is the law that says people don't have a right to a roof etc etc ?
Bear in mind the STATE puts people in prison. Which means the STATE has to look after them.
A lot of people seem to conflate human rights with other issues, which is a shame as it unnecessarily raises their blood pressure.
Having a right, is not the same as having an entitlement, which is where I think people get mixed up.
Everyone has a right to life, but if you wave a gun around in public, and find an armed policeman facing you, your right to life is balanced against others right to life. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"Correctly or otherwise, I see a roof over your head, a bed to lie on and food in your belly as basic rights in Britain in 2013. Throw in healthcare and tooth doctoring too.
Prisoners have those things.
Many people on the outside don't.
Once again, where is the law that says people don't have a right to a roof etc etc ?
..............."
It doesn't.
The fact that some people don't have a roof isn't because they don't have a human right to have one, it's because there aren't enough roofs to go round and without a roof, an address, it can be difficult to access the other stuff. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Human rights need to be clarified and then stuck to it.
How can internet access be a human right?
Having a cat is not constitute a human right a family life.
There are worse breaches of human rights in thus country that go unnoticed, like arranged marriages and religious kangaroo courts. In UK all citizens are equal no matter what race or sex, these things are the important bit.
Its simple, common sense please if it's wrong it wrong, if a blooming do-godder thinks it's wrong and it actually isn't wrong we shouldn't be forced to accept it!
Rant over
Voting! That a civil liberty in the country you a citizen of.
"
you believe that in this country we are all citizens are equal no matter of what race or gender we are. I don't think so |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Human rights need to be clarified and then stuck to it.
How can internet access be a human right?
Having a cat is not constitute a human right a family life.
There are worse breaches of human rights in thus country that go unnoticed, like arranged marriages and religious kangaroo courts. In UK all citizens are equal no matter what race or sex, these things are the important bit.
Its simple, common sense please if it's wrong it wrong, if a blooming do-godder thinks it's wrong and it actually isn't wrong we shouldn't be forced to accept it!
Rant over
Voting! That a civil liberty in the country you a citizen of.
you believe that in this country we are all citizens are equal no matter of what race or gender we are. I don't think so"
Explanation please? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Correctly or otherwise, I see a roof over your head, a bed to lie on and food in your belly as basic rights in Britain in 2013. Throw in healthcare and tooth doctoring too.
Prisoners have those things.
Many people on the outside don't.
Once again, where is the law that says people don't have a right to a roof etc etc ?
...............
It doesn't.
The fact that some people don't have a roof isn't because they don't have a human right to have one, it's because there aren't enough roofs to go round and without a roof, an address, it can be difficult to access the other stuff."
Exactly ! So why bring human rights into it at all ?
You have the same rights as I do. As my wife does. And as a prisoner does. Interestingly enough, one of those rights is a right to liberty. So how come a prisoner doesn't have that right ?
Blaming human rights for all societies ills is lazy rhetoric encouraged by a complicit media to divert the public attention from the actions of those in power. The only saving grace, as far as I can see, is that those that choose to misunderstand the situation are also much less likely to vote anyway, so we can be protected from them.
I'm sorry, but it's "human rights" which mean you don't see signs saying "No blacks, no Irish, no Dogs." If that's a bad thing, then bring it on. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"You're jumping back and forward between 'rights' and Human Rights' as if they're 100% interchangeable.
They're not."
well i'm not. i'm only replying to someone who said as Citizens of the UK we are all equal regardless of race or sex |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"You're jumping back and forward between 'rights' and Human Rights' as if they're 100% interchangeable.
They're not.
well i'm not. i'm only replying to someone who said as Citizens of the UK we are all equal regardless of race or sex "
Who said that? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Human rights need to be clarified and then stuck to it.
How can internet access be a human right?
Having a cat is not constitute a human right a family life.
There are worse breaches of human rights in thus country that go unnoticed, like arranged marriages and religious kangaroo courts. In UK all citizens are equal no matter what race or sex, these things are the important bit.
Its simple, common sense please if it's wrong it wrong, if a blooming do-godder thinks it's wrong and it actually isn't wrong we shouldn't be forced to accept it!
Rant over
Voting! That a civil liberty in the country you a citizen of.
you believe that in this country we are all citizens are equal no matter of what race or gender we are. I don't think so
Explanation please?"
there you go |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"The legislation itself is fine its how the judges interpret it thats the issue."
Judges can only interpret legislation where legislation is poorly drafted in the first place and, in any case, would you really want judges not to be allowed to take account of the individual circumstances before them?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
. Please name just one 'human right' a prisoner has that a victim doesn't have.
A prisoner has the right to live without inhumane punishment. A victim doesn't. Its fine if a victims life is trashed.
They can do whatever the hell they like to their victims but if so much one hair on their head is touched then god help the prison official concerned.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Oh and whilst I'm here try looking at what rights a separated father has to a family life. Its none whatsoever.
To the person who said somewhere above they were proud to be a feminist, yeah thanks to you and your ilk a lot of father's have lost their kids. Still proud? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Oh and whilst I'm here try looking at what rights a separated father has to a family life. Its none whatsoever.
To the person who said somewhere above they were proud to be a feminist, yeah thanks to you and your ilk a lot of father's have lost their kids. Still proud? "
no child should be without both parents in their life |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"Correctly or otherwise, I see a roof over your head, a bed to lie on and food in your belly as basic rights in Britain in 2013. Throw in healthcare and tooth doctoring too.
Prisoners have those things.
Many people on the outside don't.
Once again, where is the law that says people don't have a right to a roof etc etc ?
...............
It doesn't.
The fact that some people don't have a roof isn't because they don't have a human right to have one, it's because there aren't enough roofs to go round and without a roof, an address, it can be difficult to access the other stuff."
It's really difficult to access stuff if your roof over your head address starts HMP. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
". Please name just one 'human right' a prisoner has that a victim doesn't have.
A prisoner has the right to live without inhumane punishment. A victim doesn't. Its fine if a victims life is trashed.
They can do whatever the hell they like to their victims but if so much one hair on their head is touched then god help the prison official concerned.
"
So what would you have the state, or individual prison officers, being permitted to do to prisoners?
Starvation? ECT? Pretend executions? Stoning? Cat o Nine Tails?
That's not the sort of country I'd want to live in. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"Correctly or otherwise, I see a roof over your head, a bed to lie on and food in your belly as basic rights in Britain in 2013. Throw in healthcare and tooth doctoring too.
Prisoners have those things.
Many people on the outside don't.
Once again, where is the law that says people don't have a right to a roof etc etc ?
...............
It doesn't.
The fact that some people don't have a roof isn't because they don't have a human right to have one, it's because there aren't enough roofs to go round and without a roof, an address, it can be difficult to access the other stuff.
It's really difficult to access stuff if your roof over your head address starts HMP."
Possibly not as difficult as when your address is 'second bench on the left, Kelvingrove Park, Glasgow.' |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"Correctly or otherwise, I see a roof over your head, a bed to lie on and food in your belly as basic rights in Britain in 2013. Throw in healthcare and tooth doctoring too.
Prisoners have those things.
Many people on the outside don't.
Once again, where is the law that says people don't have a right to a roof etc etc ?
...............
It doesn't.
The fact that some people don't have a roof isn't because they don't have a human right to have one, it's because there aren't enough roofs to go round and without a roof, an address, it can be difficult to access the other stuff.
It's really difficult to access stuff if your roof over your head address starts HMP.
Possibly not as difficult as when your address is 'second bench on the left, Kelvingrove Park, Glasgow.'"
No, which is why I spent so many years working in homelessness and housing. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"..........
Possibly not as difficult as when your address is 'second bench on the left, Kelvingrove Park, Glasgow.'
No, which is why I spent so many years working in homelessness and housing."
At the risk of crossing threads.
People wonder why prisons are so busy. When the alternative is a park bench or a shop doorway, prison probably seems an OK choice. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
". Please name just one 'human right' a prisoner has that a victim doesn't have.
A prisoner has the right to live without inhumane punishment. A victim doesn't. Its fine if a victims life is trashed.
They can do whatever the hell they like to their victims but if so much one hair on their head is touched then god help the prison official concerned.
So what would you have the state, or individual prison officers, being permitted to do to prisoners?
Starvation? ECT? Pretend executions? Stoning? Cat o Nine Tails?
That's not the sort of country I'd want to live in."
Doors over there. Don't let it hit you on the ass on the way out. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
".........
So what would you have the state, or individual prison officers, being permitted to do to prisoners?
Starvation? ECT? Pretend executions? Stoning? Cat o Nine Tails?
That's not the sort of country I'd want to live in.
Doors over there. Don't let it hit you on the ass on the way out. "
Maybe those who'd prefer to live in a barbaric country ought to be the ones to leave.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
".........
So what would you have the state, or individual prison officers, being permitted to do to prisoners?
Starvation? ECT? Pretend executions? Stoning? Cat o Nine Tails?
That's not the sort of country I'd want to live in.
Doors over there. Don't let it hit you on the ass on the way out.
Maybe those who'd prefer to live in a barbaric country ought to be the ones to leave.
"
So by your logic anyone who wants sharia law would have to leave. I agree with you. But they have human rights. .... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I have come up against Human Rights big style !!
My daughter is severely disabled with no speech and i went to my Doctor to ask if she could have a "Hysterectomy" And i was told it was against her Human Rights and that i would have a battle in the courts to sort it out.
Just out of curiosity, is that as far as you took the matter. Or have you researched further ?"
We did research, but because someone i knew had already gone through the procedure and lost and lost a lot of money also in the process because it has to come out of your own pocket if you want to fight these things only if you win do you gain just like in anything.
Also it was mentioned to us that the best possible way to get a better chance with what we wanted was to go to Brussels where the courts of Human Rights are. As above we could not raise the money so we have sat back really and let them take over.... No body here in the United Kingdom will touch her !! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"the only issue I have with human rights legistlation is in regards to asylum requests.... and I do feel that you should apply for asylum from outside the country...
you should have to go to the nearest embassy/consulate... which is what you have to do for countries such as the us,canada, australia for example...
it shouldn't be a case of fighting to get people who's cases have been refused out of the country, as opposed to letting those who do have a legitimate case in.....
"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"the only issue I have with human rights legistlation is in regards to asylum requests.... and I do feel that you should apply for asylum from outside the country...
you should have to go to the nearest embassy/consulate... which is what you have to do for countries such as the us,canada, australia for example...
it shouldn't be a case of fighting to get people who's cases have been refused out of the country, as opposed to letting those who do have a legitimate case in....."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
". Please name just one 'human right' a prisoner has that a victim doesn't have.
A prisoner has the right to live without inhumane punishment. A victim doesn't. Its fine if a victims life is trashed.
They can do whatever the hell they like to their victims but if so much one hair on their head is touched then god help the prison official concerned.
"
Where is the law that *allows* a person to inflict pain on another ? Crown court judgement, or stature law will do.
Take your time. We're not going anywhere. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
the human rights act is a fantastic act however it is used by certain undesirables in our society when they have nothing else to fight with to them its the ultimate joker.
law is ambiguous by its design to allow judges etc the freedom to make their own judgements based upon the facts presented before them.
what does not help is some of the reporting by our so called press, what the free press should remember that in countries like China (i have worked there) the press are not free to report the truth without free of reprisals yet some of our press attack those very rights that the human rights act provides. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
". Please name just one 'human right' a prisoner has that a victim doesn't have.
A prisoner has the right to live without inhumane punishment. A victim doesn't. Its fine if a victims life is trashed.
They can do whatever the hell they like to their victims but if so much one hair on their head is touched then god help the prison official concerned.
Where is the law that *allows* a person to inflict pain on another ? Crown court judgement, or stature law will do.
Take your time. We're not going anywhere."
Crown Court or any other court don't. However criminals pay what attention to human rights legislation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
".........
So what would you have the state, or individual prison officers, being permitted to do to prisoners?
Starvation? ECT? Pretend executions? Stoning? Cat o Nine Tails?
That's not the sort of country I'd want to live in.
Doors over there. Don't let it hit you on the ass on the way out.
Maybe those who'd prefer to live in a barbaric country ought to be the ones to leave.
So by your logic anyone who wants sharia law would have to leave. I agree with you. But they have human rights. ...."
Are any Fabsters in favour of barbaric, Sharia type, punishments?
What would you do to adulterers, even consensual adulterers?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
". Please name just one 'human right' a prisoner has that a victim doesn't have.
A prisoner has the right to live without inhumane punishment. A victim doesn't. Its fine if a victims life is trashed.
They can do whatever the hell they like to their victims but if so much one hair on their head is touched then god help the prison official concerned.
Where is the law that *allows* a person to inflict pain on another ? Crown court judgement, or stature law will do.
Take your time. We're not going anywhere.
Crown Court or any other court don't. However criminals pay what attention to human rights legislation. "
That is why they are criminals, that is why they get punished by imprisonment.
I'm finding it difficult to follow your logic. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
". Please name just one 'human right' a prisoner has that a victim doesn't have.
A prisoner has the right to live without inhumane punishment. A victim doesn't. Its fine if a victims life is trashed.
They can do whatever the hell they like to their victims but if so much one hair on their head is touched then god help the prison official concerned.
Where is the law that *allows* a person to inflict pain on another ? Crown court judgement, or stature law will do.
Take your time. We're not going anywhere.
Crown Court or any other court don't. However criminals pay what attention to human rights legislation.
That is why they are criminals, that is why they get punished by imprisonment.
I'm finding it difficult to follow your logic. "
(Hint) don't try. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"the Torrie's destroying this one great nation
make the rich richer
an the poor poorer
slavery comes into force next year well done Torrie's you will lose the next the next election
Don't forget it was Labour that sold our once great nation down the river and filled it with immigrants changing the country forever.
Don't forget it was Labour that sold our gold reserves at a knock down prices and borrowed all the money we can't afford to pay back.
And don't forget it was Labour that passed laws allowing the likes of Cherie Blair and other parasitic lawyers to make a fortune from representing illegal immigrants."
I guess this is one of those our country moaners? When the British complain about immigration it sometimes baffles me. When they say the immigrants should leave "our" country it kind of makes me laugh. If you'd want the immigrants to leave "your" country, when would you take back your seeds from Australia? When you cry immigrants are overtaking "your" country, have you thought of what it'd be like to be a South African who's run by mostly British immigrants?
When it concerns the British they'd find a time limit as to when issues concerning immigration should stop. Who started invading and overpowering? Sometimes what goes around comes around. You can't invade everyone else's country and expect yours to be pure and no one coming in. If you agree that the British were once the forceful uninvited immigrants, then, we can proceed from there. Ranting over.
If anyone is against the country that harbour them, then, it would be right to send them packing to wherever they came from.
Human rights campaign is a free bait anyone who wants to garner attention always uses to get the people going. Politicians now use this as a free bait (just like immigration) to campaign. the Torries came with cutting immigration and cutting benefits, many bought into that bait... Who's smiling now? By how much have they cut immigration? Labour was blamed for the financial downturn, I am sure Labour also caused the financial downturn in the US and all the other countries that were in recession at the same time? The Conservatives have used this same Labour got us here slogan to win votes for how long would they keep blaming labour? Were the conservatives so amazing that they got voted out? The truth is, the best way to curb the Conservatives is to dilute their nasty policies with a coalition. The Conservatives will always trample on those on the floor already. They were the old landlords who should not see the reason why an ordinary person should be cared for.
Back to the Human rights, it needs a re_iew but do not trust the Conservatives to give that re_iew. All they'd end up doing is entice the nation with sweet words and then rip the whole Human rights into bits and allow their rich friends who run companies to use the rest as slaves.
I've seemingly gone on forever...  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Human Rights Legislation is not solely a preventative measure as it is insurance against the likes of human rights violations that weren't stopped or prevented - regardless of whether they could have been prevented or not.
It goes without saying the way people ought to treat each other but clearly a lot of people need the law looking over their shoulder to discourage them from violating another person's rights.
It's not just completely antisocial street lowlife or career criminals that abuse our rights, it's the people who would get along just fine if such legislations weren't there already to prevent them exploiting others in other ways such as slave labour, which we rightfully associate with a distasteful era of many wrongs, including racism.
The only thing people forget is that the police aren't there to govern all of us, it would be impossible to anyway. We take legislature such as this to the courts in the event that we have been exploited or violated. Because when you wave your rights all over the place, you're not going to get the job to begin with. It's just tiresome hearing people banging on like the armchair lawyers they are.
Otherwise, criminals have to be treated accordingly before and after being convicted - in the event that they may not be guilty, and in the event that they become the responsibility of an institution having to accommodate them while they are given the chance to rehabilitate and become a safer, more respectable and more productive member of society; to essentially prevent brutality being associated with the justice system and therefore to prevent the fuelling of a greater hate for society and its systems).
A Britain without a Human Rights Act... Is that a Britain where I get told to know my place and go work on a chain gang every time I find myself out of a job? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Human Rights Legislation is not solely a preventative measure as it is insurance against the likes of human rights violations that weren't stopped or prevented - regardless of whether they could have been prevented or not.
It goes without saying the way people ought to treat each other but clearly a lot of people need the law looking over their shoulder to discourage them from violating another person's rights.
It's not just completely antisocial street lowlife or career criminals that abuse our rights, it's the people who would get along just fine if such legislations weren't there already to prevent them exploiting others in other ways such as slave labour, which we rightfully associate with a distasteful era of many wrongs, including racism.
The only thing people forget is that the police aren't there to govern all of us, it would be impossible to anyway. We take legislature such as this to the courts in the event that we have been exploited or violated. Because when you wave your rights all over the place, you're not going to get the job to begin with. It's just tiresome hearing people banging on like the armchair lawyers they are.
Otherwise, criminals have to be treated accordingly before and after being convicted - in the event that they may not be guilty, and in the event that they become the responsibility of an institution having to accommodate them while they are given the chance to rehabilitate and become a safer, more respectable and more productive member of society; to essentially prevent brutality being associated with the justice system and therefore to prevent the fuelling of a greater hate for society and its systems).
A Britain without a Human Rights Act... Is that a Britain where I get told to know my place and go work on a chain gang every time I find myself out of a job?"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
".............
A Britain without a Human Rights Act... Is that a Britain where I get told to know my place and go work on a chain gang every time I find myself out of a job?"
A country without a Human Rights Act is a country where the likes of Pussy Riot get jailed first and interrogated, sorry - questioned afterwards.
Where the state has the power to require a website owner to give the email addresses/ mobile phone numbers of people who send in 'indecent' photographs of themselves. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
".............
A Britain without a Human Rights Act... Is that a Britain where I get told to know my place and go work on a chain gang every time I find myself out of a job?
A country without a Human Rights Act is a country where the likes of Pussy Riot get jailed first and interrogated, sorry - questioned afterwards.
Where the state has the power to require a website owner to give the email addresses/ mobile phone numbers of people who send in 'indecent' photographs of themselves."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
".............
A Britain without a Human Rights Act... Is that a Britain where I get told to know my place and go work on a chain gang every time I find myself out of a job?
A country without a Human Rights Act is a country where the likes of Pussy Riot get jailed first and interrogated, sorry - questioned afterwards.
Where the state has the power to require a website owner to give the email addresses/ mobile phone numbers of people who send in 'indecent' photographs of themselves."
And thats another round of thumbs from me |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"the Torrie's destroying this one great nation
make the rich richer
an the poor poorer
slavery comes into force next year well done Torrie's you will lose the next the next election "
bullshit. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I have come up against Human Rights big style !!
My daughter is severely disabled with no speech and i went to my Doctor to ask if she could have a "Hysterectomy" And i was told it was against her Human Rights and that i would have a battle in the courts to sort it out.
Just out of curiosity, is that as far as you took the matter. Or have you researched further ?
We did research, but because someone i knew had already gone through the procedure and lost and lost a lot of money also in the process because it has to come out of your own pocket if you want to fight these things only if you win do you gain just like in anything.
Also it was mentioned to us that the best possible way to get a better chance with what we wanted was to go to Brussels where the courts of Human Rights are. As above we could not raise the money so we have sat back really and let them take over.... No body here in the United Kingdom will touch her !!"
Does your daughter have any communication?
What is her capacity?
was there a medical reason why you wanted to give her a hystorectomy?
If she lacks capacity was a best interests team assembled and what was the outcome?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"the Torrie's destroying this one great nation
make the rich richer
an the poor poorer
slavery comes into force next year well done Torrie's you will lose the next the next election
May 2015, some people may have to bite the bullet and vote UKIP in order to keep the Tories out."
I'd rather die |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Oh and whilst I'm here try looking at what rights a separated father has to a family life. Its none whatsoever.
To the person who said somewhere above they were proud to be a feminist, yeah thanks to you and your ilk a lot of father's have lost their kids. Still proud?
no child should be without both parents in their life"
even if the father is a violent d*unk who sexually abuses the kids when mum is out shopping? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Religion and race are a seperate issue. Trust me were all white european over hear and the hatred and mistrust between catholic and protestant here would make and black/ white/islamic issues over there look like a spat in a nursery school yard. Groups distrust other groups be it rich/poor black / white faith or whatever. Well always find a reason to hate another group. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
To be honest people post about criminals and human rights, if some kills another person or rapes a women, they show that they can not be classed as human. As soon as they are found guilty they have given their rights up by commiting their crimes.
As for immigrantes, if they bring something that our country needes ie nhs staff, or can provied a working trade then they should be allowed in. Austrila does it all the time. As for illgal immigrantes they should be deported as soon as they are found. Along with all the hate preachers and followers that are not from here. If they are our criminal laws will deal with them, but they wanted to come to our country then start causuing trouble and killing innocent people on the streets that should not be tolerated. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I have come up against Human Rights big style !!
My daughter is severely disabled with no speech and i went to my Doctor to ask if she could have a "Hysterectomy" And i was told it was against her Human Rights and that i would have a battle in the courts to sort it out.
"
And? You think parents should be able to have a hysterectomy performed on their child just because they say so?
I'm sure it will be a pain going through the courts, but surely you can see that you have to satisfy the law that this is the right thing to do?
It might be absolutely the right thing in your case, but there are some very odd parents out there and kids need protection... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"To be honest people post about criminals and human rights, if some kills another person or rapes a women, they show that they can not be classed as human. "
Sorry, that's complete bollocks.
If we decide to abuse criminals then we're no better than they are. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"the Torrie's destroying this one great nation
make the rich richer
an the poor poorer
slavery comes into force next year well done Torrie's you will lose the next the next election
May 2015, some people may have to bite the bullet and vote UKIP in order to keep the Tories out.
I'd rather die "
The Tories may have that in their manifesto. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"To be honest people post about criminals and human rights, if some kills another person or rapes a women, they show that they can not be classed as human.
Sorry, that's complete bollocks.
If we decide to abuse criminals then we're no better than they are. "
Who said anything about abuse? So you agree with them being given an easy life? Tvs to watch? Games to play? Three meals a day? When hard working HUMANE people got to struggle to pay their rent morages, go without food for them self to give their kids something to eat? If you do then your no better than all the law protecting criminals |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
It's isn't the fault of prisoners, immigrants or human rights legislation that a lot of hard working people in the UK are struggling to make ends meet.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"To be honest people post about criminals and human rights, if some kills another person or rapes a women, they show that they can not be classed as human.
Sorry, that's complete bollocks.
If we decide to abuse criminals then we're no better than they are.
Who said anything about abuse? So you agree with them being given an easy life? Tvs to watch? Games to play? Three meals a day? When hard working HUMANE people got to struggle to pay their rent morages, go without food for them self to give their kids something to eat? If you do then your no better than all the law protecting criminals "
Does anyone REALLY think prison is "an easy life"? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I'm vague on the matter but what about the (Art 8?) rights to privacy of communications?
Does the Act actually specify that such as GCHQ/NSA will spy on all of our communications in detail and share them around?
If not why not?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"
I'm vague on the matter but what about the (Art 8?) rights to privacy of communications?
Does the Act actually specify that such as GCHQ/NSA will spy on all of our communications in detail and share them around?
If not why not?
"
If not 'will' but 'could'.
It's probably safest to work on the assumption that anything you post on the net could find its way into the public arena. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
". Please name just one 'human right' a prisoner has that a victim doesn't have.
A prisoner has the right to live without inhumane punishment. A victim doesn't. Its fine if a victims life is trashed.
They can do whatever the hell they like to their victims but if so much one hair on their head is touched then god help the prison official concerned.
Where is the law that *allows* a person to inflict pain on another ? Crown court judgement, or stature law will do.
Take your time. We're not going anywhere.
Crown Court or any other court don't. However criminals pay what attention to human rights legislation.
That is why they are criminals, that is why they get punished by imprisonment.
I'm finding it difficult to follow your logic. "
To be fair I can see you struggling |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
". Please name just one 'human right' a prisoner has that a victim doesn't have.
"
A foreign criminal (Eastern European) escaped deportation due to his human right to a family life because he had fathered a child in this country. He went on to kill a young girl while drink driving. It later transpired that he never saw his child or showed any interest in being father to that child.
So he got to enjoy his "human rights". What about the family of the dead girl? What happened to their right to a family life?
Only one example I know but there are many more. This is why people are pissed off with ECHR etc. It is not that they disagree with human rights more that they disagree with the way they are implemented. We have already had convicted criminals trying through the courts to escape jail because they have children and it is against their human right to a family life.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
". Please name just one 'human right' a prisoner has that a victim doesn't have.
A foreign criminal (Eastern European) escaped deportation due to his human right to a family life because he had fathered a child in this country. He went on to kill a young girl while drink driving. It later transpired that he never saw his child or showed any interest in being father to that child.
So he got to enjoy his "human rights". What about the family of the dead girl? What happened to their right to a family life?
Only one example I know but there are many more. This is why people are pissed off with ECHR etc. It is not that they disagree with human rights more that they disagree with the way they are implemented. We have already had convicted criminals trying through the courts to escape jail because they have children and it is against their human right to a family life.
"
it has happened quite a few times has this situation but some would deny it has ever happened in the first place. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
". Please name just one 'human right' a prisoner has that a victim doesn't have.
A foreign criminal (Eastern European) escaped deportation due to his human right to a family life because he had fathered a child in this country. He went on to kill a young girl while drink driving. It later transpired that he never saw his child or showed any interest in being father to that child.
So he got to enjoy his "human rights". What about the family of the dead girl? What happened to their right to a family life?
Only one example I know but there are many more. This is why people are pissed off with ECHR etc. It is not that they disagree with human rights more that they disagree with the way they are implemented. We have already had convicted criminals trying through the courts to escape jail because they have children and it is against their human right to a family life.
"
Thank you for your example but I do believe you're missing the point. The family have exactly the same rights in the eyes of the state as anyone else. Your example shows their loss is caused by an individual who was willing to break the law. It was not caused by the state or any human rights legislation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
".
it has happened quite a few times has this situation but some would deny it has ever happened in the first place. "
Similar stories happen all the time in this country, the fact is that the overwhelming majority of assailants are UK born and bred.
Fact, the majority of convicted criminals in this country were born in this country. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
".
it has happened quite a few times has this situation but some would deny it has ever happened in the first place.
Similar stories happen all the time in this country, the fact is that the overwhelming majority of assailants are UK born and bred.
Fact, the majority of convicted criminals in this country were born in this country. "
Plus drink driving is not the sole domain of immigrants, illegal or otherwise. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"To be honest people post about criminals and human rights, if some kills another person or rapes a women, they show that they can not be classed as human."
Total bollocks. Whatever a human does, s/he remains a human. That we as a society do not condone/tolerate certain acts and have created laws to deal with those excesses, is a good thing. The fact that some crimes are felt as revolting just proves that there's a side to human-hood that we are very uneasy with. Denial that these acts are perpetrated by humans is stupid and counter-productive, as it stands in the way of dealing with it by means of research and looking for a solution, and hopefully prevention. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
".
it has happened quite a few times has this situation but some would deny it has ever happened in the first place.
Similar stories happen all the time in this country, the fact is that the overwhelming majority of assailants are UK born and bred.
Fact, the majority of convicted criminals in this country were born in this country. "
Whilst that's almost certainly true, it isn't about sheer numbers; it's about the proportion of British born people in jail in the UK v people born overseas in British jails.
As I've mentioned before, there are far more left handed people in jail than their %age of the population would suggest. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *alcon43Woman
over a year ago
Paisley |
Prisons have nurses that only treat prisoners, psychiatrists, doctors, etc so yes they do get better medical treatment than Joe Bloggs on the street.
Prisoners will soon be getting the vote which under British Constitutional rights prisoners were not allowed but under the EU Human Rights they will.
Victims and their families have to cope with the crime that was committed against them often with little support. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"Prisons have nurses that only treat prisoners, psychiatrists, doctors, etc so yes they do get better medical treatment than Joe Bloggs on the street.
........"
Don't you have nurses, doctors and psychiatrists in Paisley? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"........
Prisoners will soon be getting the vote which under British Constitutional rights prisoners were not allowed but under the EU Human Rights they will.
......"
Theresa May has promised that won't happen and, as we know, she never tells lies. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"......
Victims and their families have to cope with the crime that was committed against them often with little support."
Victim Support will be more than grateful for any hours you can spare them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I think whilst your in prison. Especially if you have done one of the "major" crimes. Your rights go out the window and if its one of the big ones like rape, murder, etc. You shouldn't have rights ever again. Stuff like manslaughter, gbh, etc should have their cases re_iewed individually once they have left prison. The government should care more about the people who are finding the country. Not the ones who are breaking the law and hurting others intentionally. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"I think whilst your in prison. Especially if you have done one of the "major" crimes. Your rights go out the window and if its one of the big ones like rape, murder, etc. You shouldn't have rights ever again. Stuff like manslaughter, gbh, etc should have their cases re_iewed individually once they have left prison. The government should care more about the people who are finding the country. Not the ones who are breaking the law and hurting others intentionally. "
The idea of prison for rehabilitation has had its day then? No one can change or be redeemed? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"I think whilst your in prison. Especially if you have done one of the "major" crimes. Your rights go out the window and if its one of the big ones like rape, murder, etc. You shouldn't have rights ever again. Stuff like manslaughter, gbh, etc should have their cases re_iewed individually once they have left prison. The government should care more about the people who are finding the country. Not the ones who are breaking the law and hurting others intentionally.
The idea of prison for rehabilitation has had its day then? No one can change or be redeemed?"
I meant whilst in prison in prison. Your human rights go. However if it wasnt a "serious" enough offence. Then as soon as you done your time. You can have the rights back. Once the courts are happy you have changed for the better. Also how can rapists, peados and murderers change? How would you feel if you were a victim from the peado or rapist? People who steal and commit fraud sometimes deserve a second chance. Rapists and peados don't. Those were the crimes that I said the guilty party should be stripped from their rights with no chance of having them back. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"I think whilst your in prison. Especially if you have done one of the "major" crimes. Your rights go out the window and if its one of the big ones like rape, murder, etc. You shouldn't have rights ever again. Stuff like manslaughter, gbh, etc should have their cases re_iewed individually once they have left prison. The government should care more about the people who are finding the country. Not the ones who are breaking the law and hurting others intentionally.
The idea of prison for rehabilitation has had its day then? No one can change or be redeemed?
I meant whilst in prison in prison. Your human rights go. However if it wasnt a "serious" enough offence. Then as soon as you done your time. You can have the rights back. Once the courts are happy you have changed for the better. Also how can rapists, peados and murderers change? How would you feel if you were a victim from the peado or rapist? People who steal and commit fraud sometimes deserve a second chance. Rapists and peados don't. Those were the crimes that I said the guilty party should be stripped from their rights with no chance of having them back."
I have been a 'victim' - don't assume that because I have humanity and compassion that means nothing bad has happened to me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Thank you for your example but I do believe you're missing the point. The family have exactly the same rights in the eyes of the state as anyone else. Your example shows their loss is caused by an individual who was willing to break the law. It was not caused by the state or any human rights legislation. "
If the Rights of the many ie the law abiding majority and their right to live their their lives free from crime and the fear of crime had been put before the rights of one individual criminal and his dubious claim to a family life then that family would still be a family, not mourning the death of a loved one. If he had been deported, he would not have been in this country and been able to commit further crime and kill someone while d*unk driving.
This is but one example where the rights of individual criminals are put above those of the law abiding majority. The fact that someone has a pet cat is hardly reason enough in my eyes to prevent their deportation. If they are that worried about staying in this country then maybe they should obey the law of the land. How many dangerous criminals and terorists are walking the streets of this country thanks to the ECHR? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Everything about the Human rights act I hate, it's just a criminals charter & doesn't help any victims. We've already had better rights in this country than anywhere else in Europe for centuries so why the fuck should we listen to them.
n. "
A number of contributors to this thread who are unhappy with the current human rights legislation seem to only have two specific areas that 'get under their skin'. Prisoners and immigrants. Both emotive subjects, and for some posters human rights legislation is to be blamed for any issues or 'problems' that these two areas represent or are perceived to represent. The most severe sanction that a State could impose on any individual is to remove ALL their human rights. The UK used to do this, it was called execution. I understand that some want a return to capital punishment. The most severe conditions for a foreign citizen is slavery, again something that has been acceptable in Britain in the past. Some individuals in this country appear not to be against a return to slavery as the recent finds in South Wales appear to suggest. I understand that some people will always be motivated by an element of revenge and therefore will support the 'hang them high' brigade. I also understand that some unscrupulous employers would jump at the opportunity of free labour. But for the rest of us who say no. We've moved on, we are better than this we have human rights legislation. I know I'm being a little extreme here but tose who 'hate human rights' should never forget why we have them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"Thank you for your example but I do believe you're missing the point. The family have exactly the same rights in the eyes of the state as anyone else. Your example shows their loss is caused by an individual who was willing to break the law. It was not caused by the state or any human rights legislation.
If the Rights of the many ie the law abiding majority and their right to live their their lives free from crime and the fear of crime had been put before the rights of one individual criminal and his dubious claim to a family life then that family would still be a family, not mourning the death of a loved one. If he had been deported, he would not have been in this country and been able to commit further crime and kill someone while d*unk driving.
This is but one example where the rights of individual criminals are put above those of the law abiding majority. The fact that someone has a pet cat is hardly reason enough in my eyes to prevent their deportation. If they are that worried about staying in this country then maybe they should obey the law of the land. How many dangerous criminals and terorists are walking the streets of this country thanks to the ECHR?"
I fully understand the point you are making, but I simply do not accept that it provides any evidence that the immigrant in this case had more rights than the victims family in the eyes of the State or Human rights legislation.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Here here black spice!
Some people just cannot see the contrast between the incredible wealth of the tiniest minority of 'victorians' and the good old victorian workhouses!
A grotesque part of our history that can never be allowed to happen again................unless we keep the vicTORY's in, that is! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I fully understand the point you are making, but I simply do not accept that it provides any evidence that the immigrant in this case had more rights than the victims family in the eyes of the State or Human rights legislation.
"
Simple... because he was not denied his "human rights" they lost theirs. The problem people, myself included is not with human rights but with the way they are put into practice. And the individual in question wasn't just an immigrant, he was first and foremost a criminal and that is why he should have been deported.
Another example... liberty and freedom are basic human rights I am sure you will agree. Does that mean that we should not jail criminals as this is depriving them of their human rights? There will always be conflict in the application of human rights.
Should someone be allowed to make whatever racist/homophobic/sexist or otherwise highly offensive comments in the name of freedom of speech?
What about religion? Should faith schools be allowed to treat females as second class citizens, make girls sit at the back of their class and cover their heads in the name of their religion?
What about votes for prisoners especially terrorists... should they be allowed to vote for the government of the country whos rules and laws they have chosen to ignore and in some cases over throw by violent means?
I don't want a return to Victorian times of slavery and workhouses but I do want common sense and justice to prevail in my country. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Should tax evaders be classed as criminals when tax avoiders be given a 5% tax cut????
Who is a criminal? The people who brake or make the laws???
Labeling everyone in prison a criminal is laughable considering that our political system is being shown time & time again to be corrupt to the very core.
I want the right to kick the shit out of a politician, - but to no avail. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
People should not be allowed to use it to avoid, known punishment when found guilty.
If their families suffer, then thats part of societies deterrent.
If the punishment does not punish for doing or act as a deterrent then it's a meaningless punishment.
At the moment it seemes those who who use the HR to avoid punishment are those want to get rid ot it as part of introducing an alien law and practises to the UK... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *nnyMan
over a year ago
Glasgow |
"I think whilst your in prison. Especially if you have done one of the "major" crimes. Your rights go out the window and if its one of the big ones like rape, murder, etc. You shouldn't have rights ever again. Stuff like manslaughter, gbh, etc should have their cases re_iewed individually once they have left prison. The government should care more about the people who are finding the country. Not the ones who are breaking the law and hurting others intentionally.
The idea of prison for rehabilitation has had its day then? No one can change or be redeemed?"
Clearly some contributors feel all criminals should be executed at the earliest opportunity. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Clearly some contributors feel all criminals should be executed at the earliest opportunity."
*sharpens knitting needles for front row entertainment at guillotine spectacle* |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
This country abolished slavery by it's own accord in 1812 by the Tory Wilberforce. We don't need foreigners to tell us how to look after people. The Human rights act was set up because of holocaust, a foreign conception.
The thing that really pisses me off about the act is the gravy train of lawyers making millions out of this stupid & anti-British legislation. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
".
I want the right to kick the shit out of a politician, - but to no avail.
You do, every 5 years, choose wisely "
Choose wisely? Errrrrm which party is he with, then??
I think as per usual, in this truly Democratic country, my choice will be the Hobson's party!!!
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
It's scary how many people say "criminals lose all rights" without thinking. Seriously. They haven't used a single brain cell to come out with that. It's the sort of thing a chicken might say. If it had no brain.
People not only need to remember, but to always have in the front of their mind that a "criminal" is only what the state says a "criminal" is. And that can change with the wind. In 1966, a lot of folk who use Fab. Who use these very boards would have been at risk of being found to be criminals based on their sex lives. And I suspect, there are a few here who still are*. By the law of the land and the law of the day. You know the old quote about "judge not" ?
People who howl for medieval justice to be dished out to "criminals" seem to have no realisation that a "criminal" is a man made construct, and as such very very changeable.
There is no one person who can reply to this post (although I bet many try) who can claim they might not at some point in the future be branded a "criminal". And when they are, and they discover they have lost all rights, they can shout into the walls of the gulag, where no one will hear, and no one will care. Why should they ? You ARE a criminal. So who cares about you ?
*Consensual male homosexual S&M is illegal. Operation Spanner. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It's scary how many people say "criminals lose all rights" without thinking. Seriously. They haven't used a single brain cell to come out with that. It's the sort of thing a chicken might say. If it had no brain.
People not only need to remember, but to always have in the front of their mind that a "criminal" is only what the state says a "criminal" is. And that can change with the wind. In 1966, a lot of folk who use Fab. Who use these very boards would have been at risk of being found to be criminals based on their sex lives. And I suspect, there are a few here who still are*. By the law of the land and the law of the day. You know the old quote about "judge not" ?
People who howl for medieval justice to be dished out to "criminals" seem to have no realisation that a "criminal" is a man made construct, and as such very very changeable.
There is no one person who can reply to this post (although I bet many try) who can claim they might not at some point in the future be branded a "criminal". And when they are, and they discover they have lost all rights, they can shout into the walls of the gulag, where no one will hear, and no one will care. Why should they ? You ARE a criminal. So who cares about you ?
*Consensual male homosexual S&M is illegal.
Operation Spanner."
Am I allowed to bring my sheep with me into prison? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *icketysplitsWoman
over a year ago
Way over Yonder, that's where I'm bound |
"It's scary how many people say "criminals lose all rights" without thinking. Seriously. They haven't used a single brain cell to come out with that. It's the sort of thing a chicken might say. If it had no brain.
People not only need to remember, but to always have in the front of their mind that a "criminal" is only what the state says a "criminal" is. And that can change with the wind. In 1966, a lot of folk who use Fab. Who use these very boards would have been at risk of being found to be criminals based on their sex lives. And I suspect, there are a few here who still are*. By the law of the land and the law of the day. You know the old quote about "judge not" ?
People who howl for medieval justice to be dished out to "criminals" seem to have no realisation that a "criminal" is a man made construct, and as such very very changeable.
There is no one person who can reply to this post (although I bet many try) who can claim they might not at some point in the future be branded a "criminal". And when they are, and they discover they have lost all rights, they can shout into the walls of the gulag, where no one will hear, and no one will care. Why should they ? You ARE a criminal. So who cares about you ?
*Consensual male homosexual S&M is illegal. Operation Spanner."
As was stated above, you take away the rights from some and you lose them yourself.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
This has been a very interesting debate and i'd just like to thank all contributors from both sides of the argument for participating.
I hope most who have read the thread will have food for thought, but most of all I hope that all of us will make our own minds up instead of blindly trusting or being led by all aspects of the media.
Consensus on a topic like this will always be difficult, but open honest dialogue in good faith is usually a good start. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
I hope most who have read the thread will have food for thought, but most of all I hope that all of us will make our own minds up instead of blindly trusting or being led by all aspects of the media.
"
I guess you can hope in vain. Sadly, a phrase I have heard too many times in one form or another is "you can prove anything you want with facts". |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I wouldn't change any of it. In fact, as employment rights etc have been put under greater pressure, I think protection of us, the citizens, is even more important than in the past.
If others want to leave the EU, that's a different matter. But human rights, as far as I'm concerned, are sacrosanct. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) OP
over a year ago
|
"This country abolished slavery by it's own accord in 1812 by the Tory Wilberforce. We don't need foreigners to tell us how to look after people. The Human rights act was set up because of holocaust, a foreign conception.
The thing that really pisses me off about the act is the gravy train of lawyers making millions out of this stupid & anti-British legislation. "
I presume you are referring to what happened to the Jews in WW2.
Britain had concentration camps well before WW2. Do a little research into the Boar war. We don't like to talk about it because it is a stain on our history. We are on thin ice when we start to have an 'us and them' debate and point to history. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
