- 28-08-2012, 22:31 #11
When you start differentiating between whose rights you protect, and whose you don't, you are on one f***ing slippery slope; as Father Niemoller said in 1933.
Some deeply horrible characters exploit the nature of Human Rights legislation in order to stick up a stiff middle finger at the very society which protects, feeds, clothes and shelters them - I won't deny that, and I don't think that anyone with a 3-figure IQ ever could. However, that bitter taste is part of the price we pay for the protection afforded to us all by HR legislation, because supposedly civilised societies (Germany for one) have proven by their past actions that such legislation is needed to protect us. From our own societal instincts.
And on that note, I am going to clack a large Glenfiddich and hit the hay.......
- 28-08-2012, 22:38 #12
I still say they should sod off, particularly in cases like this.
There's enough injustice done in the name of human rights to make me wonder whether it is universal, or just for those who want to use it as a tool to hide their crimes under while they bleat about how, after killing a load of people, some nasty man shouted at them and made them all hurty.
- 28-08-2012, 22:43 #13
Or, are you advocating that we simply let mob justice prevail, have them ripped to bits in the street, and we wind the clock back 300 years??
- 28-08-2012, 22:48 #14
Not at all. I do, however advocate a return of a life sentence being a life sentence, and prisons being places of punishment and incarceration- a deterrent to further crime rather than a lifestyle better than mine. Three meals a day, yep, but the gym, pool tables, televisions and all that jazz can go. If they want exercise, there should be chain gangs.
I'm just pissed off with criminals getting all weepy about their human rights when they really can't be arsed about anyone else's.
- 28-08-2012, 22:50 #15
- Join Date
- Dec 2011
- 28-08-2012, 22:55 #16
- Join Date
- Dec 2011
- 28-08-2012, 22:59 #17
Ian Huntley sues prison service for £100,000 after razor attack | UK news | The Guardian - but he has a right to protection from violence.
But the fact that they can't be arsed about other people's right's doesn't negate their own.
Last edited by chasndave; 28-08-2012 at 23:04. Reason: Apologies for not being able to work the "multi-quote" function
- 28-08-2012, 23:27 #18
It would be interesting to see how many cases would be heard, at length, if the legal aid was capped at say £10,000. Would the likes of Mr Shiner be happy to trawl the world for cases?
I will admit, I have no idea as to wether the legal aid lawyers do it out of a sense of 'Justice for all.' or if it is easy money. But I do note that Matrix chambers seem to make a large amount out of the taxpayer's cash, based on legislation that was created by Mr Blair's government, with the best intentions no doubt, just lucky the prime minister's wife was in the right place at the right time. God forbid a tory bunch of corrupt ne'er do wells should try the same trick.E-Tool counselling;
When E-Mailing isn't enough.
(Curtesy of Goldbricker).
- 28-08-2012, 23:37 #19
- Join Date
- Nov 2005
I wear dark glasses so the coppers cant see my brain - Ian Brady, Child Murderer
- 28-08-2012, 23:42 #20
If the evidence was pertinent it should have been disclosed. I am happy for the ECHR to make a determination on this. If they rule against the terrorists, then so be it.
The alternative would be to allow the UK government/courts to conceal evidence, and thus prevent the ECHR (or ECJ in an EU Law case) from being able to superintend the judgments for want of evidence. Even if the judgments were wrong in law."If a terrorist organisation wanted to knock out the moral compass of Britain, all they'd have to do is to kill 100 celebrities at random. The entire country would have an instant nervous breakdown."