Amending the Human Rights Act

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by Cutsy, Jun 26, 2006.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Is essential and very much needed

  2. Should be scrapped and re written to hand the balance of power back to the ordinary citizen

  3. No particular feeling either way

  1. I have to feel very chuffed at David Cameron taking steps to amend the Human Rights Act - the disgraceful law which basically tells the baddies of the world you can do as you please and you won't have to pay the penalty for your evil deeds. David Cameron, from what I've seen so far, seems a switched on chap and completely recognises the utter piss take that this act is!! Labour have been utterly pathetic on this issue and are only interested in the rights of those that, quite frankly, should have no rights whatsoever - murderers, paedophiles, terrorists, illegal immigrants....................... the list goes on and on!! Tony Blair has miserably failed the British people in areas like immigration, law and order and security and the said act makes the situation drastically worse. I look forward to the day when this charter for evil is torn up for good and burned in the faces of the money grabbing, tree hugging lawyers who make a living out of protecting peoples 'human rights' - what will poor Cherie do?!!
  2. I have asked this question in another thread, but can You point out the relevent points You would like to get rid of - quoting the point in the act first.

    The act enshrines the European convention on Human Rights in British Law so that those relying on it do not have to go all the way to Brussels for the decision. So I will help You out by giving a link to the ECHR
  3. Why the feck should we go to a foreign court in Brussels? The HRA is having a detrimental effect on our national security and putting lives in danger. Thanks to the HRA people who have taken up arms against us are free to walk our streets. Foreign killers use it to avoid deportation, murderers, paedos and rapists use it. How many ordinary people have benefited from it? Has it prevented pensioners being jailed for not paying their council tax?

    Has it prevented pensioners being dragged out of Labour Party conferences? has it stopped protesters being arrested for reading out the names of the dead at the cenotaph? Has it prevented political prosecution of soldiers in Iraq? The only people it benefits are criminal scum and the lawyer scum who defend them.
  4. Today is veterans day. All the fawni ng and public gestures of respect - especially for the soldiers who fought in the two world wars. Yet the bunch of morons who want to scrap human rights legislation seem to have completely forgotten what the two world wars were about.

    1. The Great War cost the British Isles 2.2million casualties including 750k dead. Big ingredient was the xenophobia and jingoism of the Europe of Nation States.The post war internationalism United Nations and the EU were all designed to find better ways of getting on with the neighbours. Yet half of the percieved problem of the "Human Rights Act is that its sene as "European". The Human Rights act is the product of a BRITSH led prioject set up by Churchill to ensure that European states couldn't voiolate the rioghts of their citizens. The European Couurt of Justice is NOT part of the EU. Why can't people seem to cope with the idea of doing anythign the same way as the neighbours? Even when its our invention ???

    2. The Second World War was a crusade against evil. Nazi Germany is a lesson in the folly opf abandoning standards of human riughts. "Givign power to teh citizen" is pure BS. It actually means allowing the state to lock up more people on lower standards of evidence and gi ve them less recourse to justice. Justice means fair treatment for all. That includes the poeple that the right wing newspapers want to target as the root cause of evil. The argument that there were too many human rights is the one the Nazis used to justify cleansing the streets of antio social bolsheviks, gypsies and jews.

    What a poor show, that so many people would casually throw away the lessons and principles that veterans fought for. If there is one lesson from the Nazis its to beware of politicians seeking powers to disgard huiamn rights or place the requirements of the "majority" over the "Minority" Isn't anyoe ashamed to find themsel ves followign Nazi logic? "The suspects have too many rights" pah! Whose side would you have been on in the Secodn World war?
  5. Pteranadon, what you say is quite correct. You can, however, understand how people become frustrated with the act when they see, through the media, how it is abused by lawyers to protect those who have perhaps given up their right to protection by commiting acts of terrorism or crime. What we need to see more of is protection of the rights of the victim
  6. So anyone who thinks the HRA has been nothing more than a charter for criminals to get away with their crimes while Blair's bitch and other lawyers make money is now some sort of Nazi?

    So can anyone identify exactly how I have benefited from the HRA and how I failed to notice I was living under a Nazi jackboot untill Scum Blair rescued me?
  7. Spot on - it's the interpretation, not the Act which is at fault.

    One point I'm not sure on is whether CONVICTED criminals actually surrender ALL rights, as some seem to believe. What's people's view on that?

  8. Of course they don't! Even though someone is in prison they don't lose the basic rights to life, decent treatment etc. (and quite right, too, despite what we might think of them and what they've done). The fact that they and their lawyers may use it to give them a cushy time is another matter.
    I'm all for BASIC human rights for everyone, but that can be done through providing decent heat, light, water, sanitation and food and maybe a visit once in a while, but no more.
  9. S*d having a Bill of Rights, how about a Bill of Responsibilities. Anybody gets to do anything they like, provided they meet the responsibilities towards themselves, others, and the environment, and it also deals with the responsibilities of Government and the Judiciary. Those that break that get banged up and lose their 'rights'. It puts the emphasis more on what's required of people and the Government and gets away from the silliness that we've got at the moment!
  10. I'm really glad that we incorporated European Human Rights legislation into British law in 1997, because up to 1997 this country knew fcuk all about human rights. We obviously hadn't empowered the common man with the Magna Carta in 1215, we hadn't stopped Spanish taking over Europe in the 16th Century, the French in the 19th century and the Germans (twice) in the 20th century. While we weren't doing all that, we obviously didn't also empower the common man even further by lopping the head of a king who was getting a big too big for his breeches in 1649, and in the process found the Mother Of All Parliaments that is a model to the modern world.

    Nope, I glad that Europe is dictating what we can do, because we clearly don't have a clue.
  11. Do we? Where is the evidence that victims have had their rights infringed more than suspects? Sure we have had a campaign run by the right wing press. There are real fears of crime, but is it based on fact or hysteria? The implications, that because the mob wants lynhc justice is the same as that which brought Germany into Naziism.

    We lock up more of our citizens than any other country in Europe. But is this because the true core value of Britishness is criminality, or is it because we haven't worked out what to do with the mentally ill, and our wayward youth? Instead we bung 'em in jail where they come out trained for only one role -crime.

    Can anyone tell me how many victims lives have been improved by the application of the treeor laws compared to how often these have been used to remove political protesters? Suspects are detained be cause a politician decided that they should be locked up to prevent the possible damage they might cause if on the streets. This is the thin edge of a big wedge in everyone's rights.

    The Independent listewd eight cases that benefited from an apeal to the HRA here Pre-empting the HRA is a reason the armed forces changed their rules on woemen and gays. Maybe thats a reason enough for its repeal for some ;)

    What we need are politicians wiilling to stand up to the mob and less willing to blame "Europe" for their own failures.
  12. Why is it that when injustices to victims are come to the attention of the public it's put down to scare-mongering of the 'right wing press'? As far as I see it the press is there to report these things, but it seems you would rather the right wing papers ignored them. Is it fair to say that your quote from the Independent is scare-mongering too? Or are they talking sense just because you happen to agree with them?

    All papers have a political bent and that is something that is healthy and something that in this country we enjoy. However just because you don't like what they are saying or the way they are saying it, doesn't make it untrue.
  13. What about the rights of murder victims killed by scum released on bail, or released early because of their human rights? Or the rights of victims killed by foreign criminals who haven't been deported?

    Whenever the left are losing an argument they mention Nazism, by their warped logic, Churchill would be considered a Nazi. The fact we are unable to deport foreign criminal scum due to the Human Rights Act is more likely to lead support for right Wing parties from ordinary people. I quote:

    The abuses and uses of the Human Rights Act loopholes has, for a long time, been an inequitable tool placed in the undeserving hands of law breakers at the expense of justice for law abiders.

    As director of Victims of Crime Trust and having, I first became aware that prisoners were receiving greater human rights than their victims when one of my clients wrote to me in 1999.

    The lady, whose six-year-old daughter was murdered by a perpetrator - who later successfully sued the prison authorities under the Human Rights Act for £20,000 because treatment for his broken ankle was slightly delayed - was left wondering why he was paid such a vast sum. This compared with the £6,000 CICA compensation she received through the British criminal justice system for her murdered daughter.

    Makes you proud to be a lefty eh Pteradon??
  14. Hang on a minute... release on bail and parole are nothing new, and certainly haven't been brought in by the HRA!