Cherie Booth booed by victims families at Tory Conference

#2
Rights and Responsibilities!!!

They all know the first part inside out however failed to read the second bit.

What the fcuk did she expect?

If you take away someones Human rights illegally you should be liable to have yours taken away lawfully. It seems simple to me.



Allow me to join in "BoooooooO"
 
#3
Closet_Jibber said:
Rights and Responsibilities!!!

They all know the first part inside out however failed to read the second bit.

What the fcuk did she expect?

If you take away someones Human rights illegally you should be liable to have yours taken away lawfully. It seems simple to me.



Allow me to join in "BoooooooO"
That is the same argument used to justify state-sanctioned murder.
 
#4
bobthedog said:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/3111231/Tory-Party-conference-Cherie-Blair-booed-by-victims-families-over-human-rights.html


Cherie trying to protect her over inflated income by standing up for the European Human Rights Act.
So she turned up for an argument she knew she wouldn't win, nor one she was getting paid for, out of the blackness of her heart? Scargill turned up at a anti-global warming camp recently. I think he's a cnut, but I'll give him credit for having a stab.
 
#5
parapauk said:
Scargill turned up at a anti-global warming camp recently. I think he's a cnut, but I'll give him credit for having a stab.
Anyone attempting to stab those hippies would get credit from me as well.
 
#6
parapauk said:
Closet_Jibber said:
Rights and Responsibilities!!!

They all know the first part inside out however failed to read the second bit.

What the fcuk did she expect?

If you take away someones Human rights illegally you should be liable to have yours taken away lawfully. It seems simple to me.



Allow me to join in "BoooooooO"
That is the same argument used to justify state-sanctioned murder.
And it's a DAMN GOOD ONE!!
 
#7
I do have to agree with the logic offered by Mr Bowman. Whilst he is, obviously not impartial ,considering the horrendous acts committed against his young daughter, he certainly makes an excellent point:

"those who commit inhuman acts have revoked their right to be treated humanely" (paraphrased)

I truly am of a more "liberal" political leaning, but if there is such a clear-cut case and it is beyond doubt as to who has committed such a heinous act or acts, then they've stepped beyond their right to be protected themselves.

It's always a debatable issue, but in cases like this? Throw him into a safari park covered in cuts and bruises, and let nature take it's course, hopefully to incredibly hungry lions...(Therefore preventing any one person being directly responsible for the death/mutilation of the convict)
 
#8
parapauk said:
Closet_Jibber said:
Rights and Responsibilities!!!

They all know the first part inside out however failed to read the second bit.

What the fcuk did she expect?

If you take away someones Human rights illegally you should be liable to have yours taken away lawfully. It seems simple to me.

Allow me to join in "BoooooooO"
That is the same argument used to justify state-sanctioned murder.
And a version of which was used to attack, invade and occupy Iraq - another adaptation of state-sanctioned murder!
 
#9
whitecity said:
parapauk said:
Closet_Jibber said:
Rights and Responsibilities!!!

They all know the first part inside out however failed to read the second bit.

What the fcuk did she expect?

If you take away someones Human rights illegally you should be liable to have yours taken away lawfully. It seems simple to me.

Allow me to join in "BoooooooO"
That is the same argument used to justify state-sanctioned murder.
And a version of which was used to attack, invade and occupy Iraq - another adaptation of state-sanctioned murder!
By defintion only works if you believe the people the Iraq war was launched against were within the realm on being contained without causing harm to anyone at all.
 
#10
parapauk said:
Closet_Jibber said:
Rights and Responsibilities!!!

They all know the first part inside out however failed to read the second bit.

What the fcuk did she expect?

If you take away someones Human rights illegally you should be liable to have yours taken away lawfully. It seems simple to me.



Allow me to join in "BoooooooO"
That is the same argument used to justify state-sanctioned murder.
Yep - Capital Punishment - "Get in there"
 
#12
She angered delegates at a fringe meeting at Conservative Party conference by suggesting that those who wished to change the Human Rights Act were advocating the return of slavery or disagreed with the sanctity of life.
If she believes in the 'sanctity of life' perhaps she'd care to explain why NHS patients are exempt from the Human Rights Act.

This allowed the government to let women with breast cancer die for want of 20,000 quid of Herceptin while Abu 'Captain Hook' Hamza got over a million in legal aid to ensure his right to a fair trail, as guaranteed by the HRA.

Where was the right to life for those women and why were the lives of 50 of them less important than an islamofascist's right to a top defence QC?
 
#13
i'd love to take a sh*t in her hand bag.... and then swipe her one across the gob. she has a special place in Lucifers 'Sybian Room'......
 
#14
parapauk said:
Closet_Jibber said:
Rights and Responsibilities!!!

They all know the first part inside out however failed to read the second bit.

What the fcuk did she expect?

If you take away someones Human rights illegally you should be liable to have yours taken away lawfully. It seems simple to me.



Allow me to join in "BoooooooO"
That is the same argument used to justify state-sanctioned murder.
WTF does the above mean really?

Do you understand what murder is?

Do you understand what justice is?

C0cks like you live in infinite bubbles of pretend reality where we all live together in harmony and if anyone has any problems "I am sure we could talk it through".

The world is not like this, it is sometimes a bad place with bad people in don't you know....

I just wish that we could live out some of Douglas Adams ideas and you lot would be on the first "ship" out of here.
 
#15



How the hell could a bloke (Big Tony Bliar) have onced looked accross a bar and thought she is fit??? how can a man with these shit decision skills have run the country for so long
 
#16
All_I_Want said:
Do you understand what murder is?

Do you understand what justice is?
Murder is the unjustifiable taking of human life - there is probably a much longer legal definition, but that one will do for me.

Justice? Much more difficult. I'll start with what it isn't. It isn't revenge. It isn't an excuse to act inhumanely. It isn't an excuse to lower yourself to the standards of those that are prosecuted. In many cases there must be punishment. There should be an over-riding requirement to protect society. In some cases there can be reparation. In some cases there may be a possibility of rehabilitation.

Deprive the worst criminals of all of their rights of liberty, free expression, free association - but do not treat them inhumanely, and do not kill them. Certainly not in my name.

Cherie Booth and her ilk are quite wrong to protect all of the human rights of the most violent and vile criminals. They should not have all of the rights accorded to the law-abiding because they have demonstrated a willingness and capability to abuse those rights and neglect their responsibilities.

As I say at the start - identifying what murder is is easy. Identifying what justice is is much more problematic. There is a middle line between "Hang 'em all" and what Booth raves on about.

Edited for spelling
 
#17
Enlightenment said:
Deprive the worst criminals of all of their rights of liberty, free expression, free association - but do not treat them inhumanely, and do not kill them. Certainly not in my name.

So if some arsehole raped your nearest and dearest then slowly tortured them to death,
You think that A: locking them up is enough justice
and B: people should pay for his upkeep.
Maybe if we hung a few more chavie little bastards they might think twice before kicking a pensioner to death.
 
#18
stacker1 said:
So if some arsehole raped your nearest and dearest then slowly tortured them to death,
You think that A: locking them up is enough justice
and B: people should pay for his upkeep.
Maybe if we hung a few more chavie little bastards they might think twice before kicking a pensioner to death.
If that happened I would not expect society to do something which I would do myself. And I would fully expect and accept the fact that I would be prosecuted for my actions.

Afterwards I would probably think, "What have I achieved?"

And maybe I got the wrong person. Not being in that situation now, I genuinely hope that I would have the moral courage to stand by my convictions and want their liberty removed and society protected. And yes, society pays for it - a minimum amount, there should be no comfort, no luxury.

The Bloody Code did used to hang 10 year olds for stealing bread - and others still stole bread. One mistake, and you've killed an innocent person on behalf of the whole of society. Excepting in most extreme times of threat to society that is not acceptable.
 
#19
Ancient_Mariner said:
She angered delegates at a fringe meeting at Conservative Party conference by suggesting that those who wished to change the Human Rights Act were advocating the return of slavery or disagreed with the sanctity of life.
If she believes in the 'sanctity of life' perhaps she'd care to explain why NHS patients are exempt from the Human Rights Act.

This allowed the government to let women with breast cancer die for want of 20,000 quid of Herceptin while Abu 'Captain Hook' Hamza got over a million in legal aid to ensure his right to a fair trail, as guaranteed by the HRA.

Where was the right to life for those women and why were the lives of 50 of them less important than an islamofascist's right to a top defence QC?
Ancient_Mariner,

Herein lies the true Labour ethos,Islamofascists must be protected at all costs(with the byproduct that some egocentric anti-British liar,sorry lawyer will clean-up at the expense of the taxpayer).this Labour government has always been hell-bent to pander to the ethnic minorities and always will be.End of story.

The death of someone for want of a comparativly paltry sum of money in a NHS hospital is not an issue to the average comrade in the Labour Party-unless that someone was an illgeal immigrant or asylum-seeker.

Cherie Blair is and always will be a person of pure evil.
 
#20
Enlightenment said:
Deprive the worst criminals of all of their rights of liberty, free expression, free association - but do not treat them inhumanely, and do not kill them. Certainly not in my name.

Cherie Booth and her ilk are quite wrong to protect all of the human rights of the most violent and vile criminals. They should not have all of the rights accorded to the law-abiding because they have demonstrated a willingness and capability to abuse those rights and neglect their responsibilities.

As I say at the start - identifying what murder is is easy. Identifying what justice is is much more problematic. There is a middle line between "Hang 'em all" and what Booth raves on about.

I do not want to kill in your name, what I want is a referendum on the death penalty so that the majority of this country can decide, if as the polls suggest they decide to re-instate it and you do not like the outcome of the majority of this country you are, of course, free to leave and live in another country that does not have the death penalty. As at the minute I am free to leave and live in a country that does have it, but why should I when we all know that the majority want it back.

Yes they should lose their rights on a sliding scale depending on what they have done, ultimately losing their own life, it was their choice after all, but not the choice of the innocents they kill.

Yes there is a middle line, I do not want to "hang um all", just some...for the most vile they live and die towards the end of the line.....
 

Similar threads


New Posts

Latest Threads

Top