Army Rumour Service

Register a free account today to join our community
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site, connect with other members through your own private inbox and will receive smaller adverts!

Amending the Human Rights Act

The Human Rights Act

  • No particular feeling either way

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    11
drain_sniffer said:
It seems to victims that criminals and illegal immigrants are immediately elevated to some extraordinary higher status of special treatment under the Human Rights Act, which empowers them to sue for any and every perceived injustice.

Clive Elliot - Victims of Crime Trust

Rolf!
 
Watching PM Question Time today I wondered why they bother with it any more. Ministers ask seemingly legitimate questions that have already been put to the PM. All he seems to come back with is defined answers that deflect Labours short comings, his default remark is 'it was worse under the Tories' (cue smarmy back bench giggles). David Cameron will have a hard time pushing Blair on HRA because Blair deflects EVERYTHING. I'd like the Government to offer referndums on all major issues such as HRA but Labour fears that voting would not be favourable and they'd lose their grip - officially. Bring on the Revolution I say!
 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5125668.stm

Do you really need to say anymore, For all you bleating liberals out there your right, these people have never been convicted of an offence under out laws. However yet they are in our country and should be expected to live by our laws as I and everyone else on here does. And what a surprise, government legislation is not compatible with the ECHR!
 
securit said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5125668.stm

Do you really need to say anymore, For all you bleating liberals out there your right, these people have never been convicted of an offence under out laws. However yet they are in our country and should be expected to live by our laws as I and everyone else on here does. And what a surprise, government legislation is not compatible with the ECHR!

TBH, I do not really understand what you are saying here. I would like to point out, however, that incompatibility with the ECHR does not in any way invalidate the legislation concerned.

So what is your point?
 
Pteradon wrote:

They won the war under the banner of the United nations

No they didn't, and as a matter of fact, one of contributing factors to WW2 was the failure of the league of nations to do anything.

When Europe was under the Nazi Jackboot, and America was resisting Churchills overtures, all that stood between the World and Nazi Tyranny were the British people. To say the UN had anything to do with the defeat of Nazism is frankly insulting to the sacrifices made by our countrymen.

Anyway, back to HRA. while it may defend minorities, we are now in a position where the law is being used to change the nature and character of Britain. The entire legal process is now biased in favour of minorities and there are many examples of discrimination against the majority in things like benefits, housing and jobs (Including the police who are meant to be impartial)

There has been a time when laws were used by ethnic minorities to impose their will against the wishes if an indiginous majority. Except it wasn't called HRA in South Africa, it was called apartheid.
 
Awol said:
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.

Egad! I do believe you've nailed it ol' fruit!
 
what we have to look at is the perception of injustice. I quoted Clive Elliot, head of the victims of crime trust. If he perceves that the HRA is creating a feeling of injustice, then something is wrong. You cannot blame the press for playing to peoples emotions, thats what sells copy. The majority of people will belive what they read. I belive we need something in place to protect the rights of all individuals, and something that can be seen to be fair to everyone. The majority, I believe, have lost faith in HRA.


PS what does Rolf mean?
 
Just remember the UN did not exist until after the Second World War, so try not to blame me for that one. The first plenary sitting took place in London in (IIRC) 1945 and then the world as it was agreed to establish it at the San Fransisco Meeting.
 
drain_sniffer said:
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

Totally agree, DS, I deal with people who do not deserve the protection of the HRA, as they have abused, robbed, beaten ad nauseam some person and had no thought for their HR's. They should attach a pre curser- If I break the law then the HRA can be amended accordingly.
 
drain_sniffer said:
what we have to look at is the perception of injustice. I quoted Clive Elliot, head of the victims of crime trust. If he perceves that the HRA is creating a feeling of injustice, then something is wrong. You cannot blame the press for playing to peoples emotions, thats what sells copy. The majority of people will belive what they read. I belive we need something in place to protect the rights of all individuals, and something that can be seen to be fair to everyone. The majority, I believe, have lost faith in HRA.


PS what does Rolf mean?

I agree that the perception of injustice should be dealt. But I do not agree the media should not be blamed. They, and remarks made by people like Clive Owen, has distorter public perception of crime, and the HRA. The danger with that is in a democracy, politicians are under pressure to pander to the public, however irrational the public is.

Rolf means 'rolling on the floor laughing'. I was laughing at Clive Owen's ridiculous and, imo, irresponsible remark.
 
Scabster_Mooch said:
drain_sniffer said:
what we have to look at is the perception of injustice. I quoted Clive Elliot, head of the victims of crime trust. If he perceves that the HRA is creating a feeling of injustice, then something is wrong. You cannot blame the press for playing to peoples emotions, thats what sells copy. The majority of people will belive what they read. I belive we need something in place to protect the rights of all individuals, and something that can be seen to be fair to everyone. The majority, I believe, have lost faith in HRA.


PS what does Rolf mean?

I agree that the perception of injustice should be dealt. But I do not agree the media should not be blamed. They, and remarks made by people like Clive Owen, has distorter public perception of crime, and the HRA. The danger with that is in a democracy, politicians are under pressure to pander to the public, however irrational the public is.

Rolf means 'rolling on the floor laughing'. I was laughing at Clive Owen's ridiculous and, imo, irresponsible remark.

You mean Clive Elliot. I believe he is saying it how he see's it. If you look at the link and comments on the site, there are some well rounded views
 
Warrior_Poet said:
Pteradon wrote:
Anyway, back to HRA. while it may defend minorities,

1we are now in a position where the law is being used to change the nature and character of Britain.

2The entire legal process is now biased in favour of minorities and there are many examples of discrimination against the majority in things like benefits, housing and jobs (Including the police who are meant to be impartial)

1. How is the HRA and the ECHR being used to change the 'nature and character of Britain'? The right to life, the prohibition on toture, the right to family life, the right to education changes the character of britain? That is a revelation.

2. That has probably got nothing to do with the HRA and the ECHR. More likely, it is the result of firstly, policies which say that resources should be distributed on the basis of need, and secondly, managers jumping on the PC bandwagon.
 
drain_sniffer said:
Scabster_Mooch said:
drain_sniffer said:
what we have to look at is the perception of injustice. I quoted Clive Elliot, head of the victims of crime trust. If he perceves that the HRA is creating a feeling of injustice, then something is wrong. You cannot blame the press for playing to peoples emotions, thats what sells copy. The majority of people will belive what they read. I belive we need something in place to protect the rights of all individuals, and something that can be seen to be fair to everyone. The majority, I believe, have lost faith in HRA.


PS what does Rolf mean?

I agree that the perception of injustice should be dealt. But I do not agree the media should not be blamed. They, and remarks made by people like Clive Owen, has distorter public perception of crime, and the HRA. The danger with that is in a democracy, politicians are under pressure to pander to the public, however irrational the public is.

Rolf means 'rolling on the floor laughing'. I was laughing at Clive Owen's ridiculous and, imo, irresponsible remark.

You mean Clive Elliot. I believe he is saying it how he see's it. If you look at the link and comments on the site, there are some well rounded views

:oops: Sorry - I do not know where 'clive owen' came from.
 
Scabster wrote:

The danger with that is in a democracy, politicians are under pressure to pander to the public, however irrational the public is.

And what if its the politicians and judiciary that are being irrational?

The politicians are there to serve the wishes of the people, not impose their own twisted agenda on the majority.

Trying to blame the press for doing their job of reporting serious injustice to the victims of crime is grossly unfair as is calling the public irrational for wanting the punishment to fit the crime.

Do you consider it irrational to want child murderers executed or at least locked up till they die. Is it irrational to want Afghan Hi jackers deported? Is it irrational to want criminals to pay the proper price for their crime?

I have children, it is irrational for me to want their rights put above the rights of scum?
 
Scabster also wrote:

. How is the HRA and the ECHR being used to change the 'nature and character of Britain'? The right to life, the prohibition on toture, the right to family life, the right to education changes the character of britain? That is a revelation.

because we are not allowed to deport foreign criminals this country is becoming a magnet for them. Our public services/NHS etc are on the point of collapse, Islamic terrorists are free to prowl our streets freely thanks to "Human Rights"

What about the human rights of the British taxpayer who are funding housing, benefits and health care for illegals? What about the human rights of those murdered by people who have not been deported because of "Human Rights"

If you want to see how the nature of Britain is changing for the worst... open your eyes to the truth.
 

New posts

Top