Human Rights Act

[thalbergmad]

Should be repealed immediately.

It is a chancers charter that protects criminals, illegal immigrants and terrorists.
What are your views?

Thal

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Be reasonable. There's far too much money in it for lawyers.. some lawyers in particular

[thalbergmad]

Cherie bloody Blair for instance.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Funny you should mention her. I didn't have her in mind at all.. ahem.

Frankly, in today's climate, it was almost suprising that the civilians who intervened during the terrorist attack at Glasgow airport weren't charged with assault..

[prometheus]

Human rights are for all people.



Otherwise it's pointless.

[thalbergmad]

It is for all people, but when you are unable to deport dangerous terrorists because of the Act, you are denying their victims of their Human Rights.

Thal

[pianistimo]

yes.  and they don't get dna either.  whoever want to rule the world can just forget it!  because the free world doesn't want and isn't used to being spied on and accused before tried.  as i see it - just like national policies for countries - the bills are jammed together and everyone votes on 4-5 at a time.  it is this way that small things go unnoticed.  wordings.  specifics.  it sounds good at the time - but is basically a little time bomb later.

do you know how homeowner's associations work?  well, it's a little taste into how people take your money for a 'cause' and then make you responsible to make sure it works properly - with their oversight (of course).

PUT THE LOCKERBEE BOMBER BACK INTO JAIL FOR 100 MORE YEARS!  he's about to be released you know?!

[ronde_des_sylphes]

PUT THE LOCKERBEE BOMBER BACK INTO JAIL FOR 100 MORE YEARS!  he's about to be released you know?!

That would be because there is considerable doubt as to whether he actually did it. In fact there is a lot of evidence pointing to his innocence.

[pianistimo]

? ? ?  he was tried and convicted - and there WAS evidence that he was personally responsible.  27 years means only 1 year for each HUMAN LIFE for 27 people instead of 270.  these policy makers of the human rights are DAFT.  they are basically making terrorism legal.  they can rot in their own policies because the uk and usa won't accept them.  neither will they accept the idea that free people who are not criminals should give them dna.  this is rot.  they want this databank.  i say destroy it now before we HAVE NO HUMAN RIGHTS. https://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v7/n1s/full/7400727.html

give me liberty or give me death.  if people are begging, being drunk, or disorderly - they are not a hardened criminal.  just keep the hard-core criminals and leave the basic population well-enough alone.

[prometheus]

It is for all people, but when you are unable to deport dangerous terrorists because of the Act, you are denying their victims of their Human Rights.

No, you aren't.

[pianistimo]

prometheus - you could never run a country.  you don't understand the basic premise OF human rights.  that is :  protect the majority.  say you have a sniper that knocks off 50 people from the tower of london.  does he not deserve to be knocked off himself?  we should get wise and make their stay in jail not like a hotel down the street.  basically, make them think twice about the virgins in heaven.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

? ? ?  he was tried and convicted - and there WAS evidence that he was personally responsible.  27 years means only 1 year for each HUMAN LIFE. 

You simply don't know what you're talking about. This issue is NOT a human rights issue; it is an issue where considerable doubt has been expressed in legal and (serious-coverage) press circles regarding the safety of his conviction - amongst others it has been suggested that he was a sacrificial offering by Gaddafi, in return for which he received financial benefits and that indeed the true terrorists were sponsored by other countries (most probably Syria). There has been considerable coverage of the flaws in the evidential procedure and serious questions raised by various responsible sources of investigative journalism. In short, there is a significant amount of evidence that he DIDN'T do it, and had this evidence been properly presented at the time of the trial (considerable amounts of relevant evidence were withheld from the defence) it is more than likely that he would not have been convicted in the first place.

these policy makers of the human rights are DAFT.  they are basically making terrorism legal.  they can rot in their own policies because the uk and usa won't accept them.

The UK HAS accepted them; hence the initiation of this thread!

[pianistimo]

LIARS.  they are born liars.  do you believe everyone you listen to.  they can talk your aunt out of your uncle.

and the day that man is free is when you'll see some riots. 

[ronde_des_sylphes]

LIARS.  they are born liars.  do you believe everyone you listen to.  they can talk your aunt out of your uncle.

Who are liars?

That was rather enigmatic.

[thalbergmad]

No, you aren't.

In the UK, the Human Rights Act has prevented the deportation of the vile piece of turd otherwise known as Abul Hamza. This man has done nothing but preach hatred of the West and the Country that gave him a home and large amounts of benefit. He openly called for English people to be killed and known terrorists visited the Mosque at Frindsbury Park where he preached.

Thanks to the Human Rights Act, we cannot deport this lump of crap because he might be tortured if we returned him to the rat infested latrine from which he originated. Instead, we have to keep him in prison, pay for a Solicitor to defend him, give him a laptop to help him prepare his case and give him a brand new "hook" on the NHS, coz the other one was giving him problems.

Whilst he is receiving excellent medical treatment, our own pensioners and old people are dying in their own piss in 3rd world hospitals.

His rights are obviously more important than the majority of the population who wish to live a peaceful life without being blown up.

This is the stupidity of the Human Rights Act.

Thal

[ronde_des_sylphes]

In the UK, the Human Rights Act has prevented the deportation of the vile piece of turd otherwise known as Abul Hamza. This man has done nothing but preach hatred of the West and the Country that gave him a home and large amounts of benefit. He openly called for English people to be killed and known terrorists visited the Mosque at Frindsbury Park where he preached.

Absolutely 100% correct.

And what is also rather curious to me: if you or I were to preach the sort of incitement he was preaching, we would find the system less sympathetic to our "human rights" than it is to his.

[thalbergmad]

And what is also rather curious to me: if you or I were to preach the sort of incitement he was preaching, we would find the system less sympathetic to our "human rights" than it is to his.

I am afraid that you are correct. If i stood outside my local Mosque preaching hatred against muslims, it would be about 3 seconds before the police turned up and deservedly so.

The flag burning apes that harassed church goers outside Westminster Cathedral, were not even cautioned.

Sometimes, i just cannot fathom the thinking of the imbeciles that run this Country.

Thal

[mephisto]

It should not be banned

[zheer]

    Human Rights Act .

   The right to have a job and the right to be fed and housed as equal citizen, are basic human rights. If we ,humanity were satisfied with that, the word would be a much better place.

[pianistimo]

we don't need an 'act' to be guaranteed human rights.  if you live in a free country, you already have them.  this so-called human rights 'act' is legislated by a body we know nothing about.  what are their purposes for the addendums by which we legally and bindingly would agree which are tagged on to the other 'sound good' ideas.  it's like a bill which is passed with 3-4 other bills.  do you realize it's really giving away your human rights.  defining eXACTLY what they are?  how can you define someone's human rights.  next they'll start telling you what portion of your brain is yours.

i think they are off their rocker.  people who grow up free don't need to be told what it is.  sure, the militaries (ALL OF THEM) are breaking rules right and left.  but, that doesn't mean the general population doesn't understand justice.  now, we have immigration dillemmas. 

i am positively for treating aliens with respect and they often get jobs here above us citizens because they are known for their work ethics.  but the jobs - yes - are sometimes jobs that us citizens don't want to do in the first place.  the good thing is that they can work themselves up to where they want to be.

the only problem that i see now is that governments around the world are submitting to this 'one world' idea and submitting their power (portions of their military, their land, their people) to gain acceptance and also submitting their populations to intense scrutiny and identity theft.  we don't call it identity theft to take someone's dna or spy on them.  if people knew what the backers of the 'human rights act' are doing - they would not believe a word they said about rights -and instead beg for FREEDOM.  freedom means you don't have to TELL people they have rights.  they are free to go around without tags of laws written on the backs of their shirts.

study the roman empire and then say something valuable about the 'human rights act.'  it belongs strictly and only within the international laws for how to treat prisoners of war.  THAT's IT.  well, and situations where we have thugs killing off portions of their population (such as sudan and darfur and other places, too).  this would go under 'terrorism and human rights.'  how about that?  Terrorism and human rights.  does anyone phrase it like that?

ps the concernable thing to me within our country is 'liveable wage'  (which is taking human rights if it is not liveable) - right to bear arms - and unnecessary taxation.  does anyone mention those?

[pianistimo]

just take the issue of 'right to bear arms'- this is how this 'human rights act' is going to kick freedom in the face.

[elspeth]

   The right to have a job and the right to be fed and housed as equal citizen, are basic human rights.

Do you really think having a job is a basic human right? 'You can't fire me, I may be bad at the job or always skiving off but if you fire me you're impinging on my human rights'? As you define them there, human rights are all take, take, take - no mention of what the state gets in return for providing jobs, food and housing for all, or what responsibilities are implied to society by each person in return for having those rights recognised.

It's a sticky issue. We all want to be treated well, of course... but there's always payback somewhere along the line, and it's unfortunate that it appears that those the human rights legislation ends up protecting are often those people who do not acknowledge or respect others' rights or those of society as a whole. These things have to go both ways... and all too often they don't.

[zheer]

Do you really think having a job is a basic human right?

  The right to have a job is a basic Human right. Not allowing some-one to have a job ( provided he/she is qualified for the job) is a viloation of human right.

[e60m5]

we don't need an 'act' to be guaranteed human rights.  if you live in a free country, you already have them.  this so-called human rights 'act' is legislated by a body we know nothing about.  what are their purposes for the addendums by which we legally and bindingly would agree which are tagged on to the other 'sound good' ideas.  it's like a bill which is passed with 3-4 other bills.  do you realize it's really giving away your human rights.  defining eXACTLY what they are?  how can you define someone's human rights.  next they'll start telling you what portion of your brain is yours.

i think they are off their rocker.  people who grow up free don't need to be told what it is.  sure, the militaries (ALL OF THEM) are breaking rules right and left.  but, that doesn't mean the general population doesn't understand justice.  now, we have immigration dillemmas. 

i am positively for treating aliens with respect and they often get jobs here above us citizens because they are known for their work ethics.  but the jobs - yes - are sometimes jobs that us citizens don't want to do in the first place.  the good thing is that they can work themselves up to where they want to be.

the only problem that i see now is that governments around the world are submitting to this 'one world' idea and submitting their power (portions of their military, their land, their people) to gain acceptance and also submitting their populations to intense scrutiny and identity theft.  we don't call it identity theft to take someone's dna or spy on them.  if people knew what the backers of the 'human rights act' are doing - they would not believe a word they said about rights -and instead beg for FREEDOM.  freedom means you don't have to TELL people they have rights.  they are free to go around without tags of laws written on the backs of their shirts.

study the roman empire and then say something valuable about the 'human rights act.'  it belongs strictly and only within the international laws for how to treat prisoners of war.  THAT's IT.  well, and situations where we have thugs killing off portions of their population (such as sudan and darfur and other places, too).  this would go under 'terrorism and human rights.'  how about that?  Terrorism and human rights.  does anyone phrase it like that?

ps the concernable thing to me within our country is 'liveable wage'  (which is taking human rights if it is not liveable) - right to bear arms - and unnecessary taxation.  does anyone mention those?

...

[thalbergmad]

and it's unfortunate that it appears that those the human rights legislation ends up protecting are often those people who do not acknowledge or respect others' rights or those of society as a whole. These things have to go both ways... and all too often they don't.

Which is why i say the current act needs to be repealed, re thought and then replaced.

If people purposely live outside of the law, i do not see why they should be protected by it.

Thal

[e60m5]

I was going to post a more substantial reply, but I'm afraid that no serious discussion of the HRA appears to be possible here.

Briefly put, I firmly believe that fundamental human rights should be protected by law, and I agree with thalbergmad that the HRA should be abolished forthwith. 

[thalbergmad]

I'm afraid that no serious discussion of the HRA appears to be possible here.
 

No serious discussion of anything is possible here.

Sister Susan the Preacher from Pa, has given us a lengthy sermon, possibly without knowledge of our delightful little piece of UK legislation.

Thal

[ahinton]

I am afraid that you are correct. If i stood outside my local Mosque preaching hatred against muslims, it would be about 3 seconds before the police turned up and deservedly so.

The flag burning apes that harassed church goers outside Westminster Cathedral, were not even cautioned.

Sometimes, i just cannot fathom the thinking of the imbeciles that run this Country.

Thal

I daresay that quite a lot of us have difficulty in fathoming that from time to time, but let it not be forgotten that they are elected to do so by citizens of the country - not all such citizens, I know (since some vote for other parties and others not at all), but at least sufficient to enable such people to have a mandate. What would you say about that?

And if the HRA were repealed, what would you like to see put in its place? Nothing at all? A better piece of legislation? If the latter, who would you entrust to create it and see it through onto the statute books, to say nothing of policing it afterwards?...

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

And if the HRA were repealed, what would you like to see put in its place? Nothing at all? A better piece of legislation? If the latter, who would you entrust to create it and see it through onto the statute books, to say nothing of policing it afterwards?...

There needs to be something in place, but a vastly amended document.

The existing government could not be trusted to do so. Bliar said some time ago that he was going to get tough on crime, but this act does not allow him to do so. Whether the Conservatives would be any better, only time will tell if they get a chance.

A heavily revised act would free up more police in order to implement it.

Thal

[pianistimo]

in the wild west - the rule of law was 'common sense.'  if you didn't have it - somebody shot you.  i have personally seen the courtrooms with hanging facilities out back in redding, california.  that was real eye-opener.  perhaps human rights should be discussed on the same plane as justice.

i don't need to be told that the uk blindly accepted this human rights act - or that the us is now turning guantanamo (which rightly should be) into some sort of scrutiny for the entire world - when terrorist point blank put pictures of americans, uk and other nationalities and BEHEAD THEM when they are still ALIVE.  that, my friends, is blantant stupidity.  and, they don't seem to understand 'why' they don't get human rights?

there are other ways of getting attention.  one might be to rightly use funds when they come your way.  saddam hussein, instead, horded.  just like many other dictators.  they are never satisfied.  that is what you call an enemy and not someone you sit down to dinner with.

[thalbergmad]

when terrorist point blank put pictures of americans, uk and other nationalities and BEHEAD THEM when they are still ALIVE. 

Well, beheading them when they were dead would not have the same effect.

Thal

[prometheus]

Thalbergmad, you are talking about, possible hypothetical, cases where human rights of people aren't equally protected.

You aren't even arguing against human rights for everyone.


In your case you  are either preaching hate to the level that violates the law, and you are stopped. And then the people at the church do the exact same thing but aren't stopped.


Now, it is possible that the police just wasn't there while they just were there to stop you.

Or they consciously didn't enforce the law on those people at the church.


Another possibility is neither of you were breaking the law and you were unjustly stopped.


Then, maybe they had read the law while you didn't and they knew exactly how far they could go without breaking the law where you barely broke the law. In that case the police acted correctly.

[thalbergmad]

Thalbergmad, you are talking about, possible hypothetical, cases where human rights of people aren't equally protected.

You aren't even arguing against human rights for everyone.

Now, it is possible that the police just wasn't there while they just were there to stop you.

1. One was hypothetical, the other was not. I have yet to stand outside a Mosque spouting hatred to test out my theory. I plan to do this tomorrow. Watch out for the 9 o clock news.

2. I am, filth like Abul Hamza should not have any and should be deported.

3. They were standing watching.

Thal

[pianistimo]

i believe that vengeance is God's - even though i have watched a lot of old west movies and always root for the supposed 'good guys.'  it's not like people have a natural feel for justice anymore.  they are like blind automotons doing what the 10 tiers above them tell them to do. 

it is willing submission to a group (probably based in brussels) that calls themselves 'god.'  'what we say is the law.  you can't do anything to change it.  we've got you on our computer.  we know your dna.  you can't stop us from ruling the world.'  that's what the guy thought on the wizard of oz until they found out he was a mere man behind a curtain using a voice resonator. 

[pianistimo]

and, btw - IF THEY WERE SO EFFECTIVE - HOW COME SUDAN AND DARFUR EXIST?

what are they going to do about kosovo now?  well, i admit - that one is a can of worms.  didn't several wars begin because of 'in the middle' countries.

[thalbergmad]

i believe that vengeance is God's

Irrelevant, please keep your religious crap out of this discussion.

[pianistimo]

well, as i see it - God is the only one that will get us out of a world war.  probably by leading us out of it crying at the devastation left behind - and being amazed at how God can re-create and restore and renew the earth.  nobody else can.  they are not God.

if God is not real - there IS no justice.

and, there is no purpose to life.  only death. only for soldiers to die at 18-20+ for no reason at all.  i don't believe this.  i choose to believe that freedom is a worthy cause - and yet many died to give freedom to others without vengeance in their hearts.  if this isn't christian, i don't know what is.  also, i think that the mothers of fallen soldiers only hope is that they are ressurrected.  that they will see their boys again.  what mother wants to believe her heart has been ripped out and will never be whole.

[thalbergmad]

well, as i see it - God is the only one that will get us out of a world war. 

Well he did not help much with the last 2.

Again, irrelevant religious nonsense, please BUTTON IT.

Thal

[zheer]

well, as i see it - God is the only one that will get us out of a world war. 

    A world war will bring the end to humanity.

[prometheus]

1. One was hypothetical, the other was not. I have yet to stand outside a Mosque spouting hatred to test out my theory. I plan to do this tomorrow. Watch out for the 9 o clock news.

Well, as long as you don't incite hate in others you will probably be legal.

2. I am, filth like Abul Hamza should not have any and should be deported.

In China they don't have human rights. Maybe move there.

[thalbergmad]

In China they don't have human rights. Maybe move there.

They are at the other end of the spectrum to the UK and i don't fancy working a 100 hour week for $2.

We do need a Human Rights Act, but not one that prevents us from deporting dangerous scum.

Thal

[prometheus]

But wasn't that guy found guilty and punished? What more do you want?

[thalbergmad]

He is in prison, in a nice little room on 3 hot meals per day. He has been given a computer and a new hook. How has he been punished?

I want him deported. The Human Rights Act prevents this as he "might" be tortured in his Country of origin. That is why i want the Act repealed.

Regretfully, he is not the only case. One 6th of the prison population of the UK, were not born here. Keeping them here is a disgusting waste of taxpayers money.

Thal

[zheer]

We do need a Human Rights Act, but not one that prevents us from deporting dangerous scum.

Thal

   You do realize thal, that this has been an ongoing issue for the past 6 - 7 hundred years in England.
   Deporting people or mass deportation as you put it is a bad idea, simply because it will damage the economy , but compared to the rest of the world, with the expetion of a few other boring nation, the UK does remain ............................... no you are right, things are looking bad.

[ahinton]

in the wild west - the rule of law was 'common sense.'

They'd not have had you living there, then would they?!...

if you didn't have it - somebody shot you.  i have personally seen the courtrooms with hanging facilities out back in redding, california.  that was real eye-opener.  perhaps human rights should be discussed on the same plane as justice.

i don't need to be told that the uk blindly accepted this human rights act - or that the us is now turning guantanamo (which rightly should be) into some sort of scrutiny for the entire world - when terrorist point blank put pictures of americans, uk and other nationalities and BEHEAD THEM when they are still ALIVE.  that, my friends, is blantant stupidity.  and, they don't seem to understand 'why' they don't get human rights?

there are other ways of getting attention.  one might be to rightly use funds when they come your way.  saddam hussein, instead, horded.  just like many other dictators.  they are never satisfied.  that is what you call an enemy and not someone you sit down to dinner with.

"Human rights" and any legislation that purposts to enshrine them are either for all humans or none. Legislation is passed by governments of all kinds, everywhere, whose only common factor is that they comprise humans. When there is a law in place, the only people who implement it in practice are lawyers (other, of course, than in the more primitive societies); more legislation - or even differently drafted simpler legislation - is therefore a lawyer's breakfast, lunch and dinner. No society is ever going to be exclusively happy with anything that legislators pass and lawyers subsequently argue over (and let us not forget that the very puspose of lawyers is to argue beyond all reasonable doubt that black and white are each red and green to the extent that it lines their respective pockets).

Best,

AListair

[ahinton]

   You do realize thal, that this has been an ongoing issue for the past 6 - 7 hundred years in England.
   Deporting people or mass deportation as you put it is a bad idea, simply because it will damage the economy , but compared to the rest of the world, with the expetion of a few other boring nation, the UK does remain ............................... no you are right, things are looking bad.

The overall value of deporation may well be compromised by the fact that so many British people are leaving Britain of their own free will; if that trend continues to increase, there may not be enough space left to deport people and if it continues long enough there may not even be anyone left to do the deportation.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

 Deporting people or mass deportation as you put it is a bad idea, simply because it will damage the economy

Keeping terrorists in prison is costing us millions.

A one way plane ticket only costs a few hundred.

15 foot of quailty rope, costs even less.

Thal

[ahinton]

Keeping terrorists in prison is costing us millions.

A one way plane ticket only costs a few hundred.

15 foot of quailty rope, costs even less.

Thal

And how much do the lawyers cost? (and who pays for them?). It's no good, Thal - like it or not, any action, however appealing or unappealing, sensible or senseless, apparently justified or otherwise it may seem to you to be is bound to invite the attentions of international lawyers, because no country is immune to the attentions of another countries' lawyers if it acts in any way that might be deemed to disadvantage any of the citizens of any of those other countries; just look at the Lockerbie "bomber/s" or the NatWest three (a mere two examples of this kind of thing). So-called "splendid isolation" is - and has for some time been - an antediluvian concept and that ain't about to change.

Best,

Alistair

[zheer]

Keeping terrorists in prison is costing us millions.

A one way plane ticket only costs a few hundred.

15 foot of quailty rope, costs even less.

Thal

           Terrorists have a political objective, bombing and going to war with the rest of the world is the surest way of attracting organized terror plots on us Citizen. A one way plane ticket is a bad idea it only provides a temporary solution to the situation.
However capturing these terrorist and handing them over to their own goverment is also a bad idea since that can creat more problem in the long run. Going to war is expensive so one must pay the price.
    BTW it is always us the citizen that suffer, politicians know how to look after them-selve.

[thalbergmad]

A one way plane ticket is a bad idea it only provides a temporary solution to the situation.

True, but surely better than none at all.

Thal