Human Rights Farce

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by mushroom, Jun 29, 2007.

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. Today the European Court of Human Rights gave judgement that the right to silence is not a right when applied to speeding motorists. I'm sure some technocrat can provide a link.

    Do these people have any concept whatsoever, of the term 'Right'.

    Translating it from legalese is no mean feat though.

    I think the bottom line is that, with many high sounding declarations made by the court - yes, you are correct.
  3. EUBanana's link took me to a different case for some reason.

    I think these are the cases of two British vehicle owners a Mr Francis and a Mr O'Halloran against the UK. Both cases involved speeding cameras. One owner refused to identify who was driving at the time. The other initially admitted to being the driver, but later sought to have that confession excluded on the grounds of self discrimination.
  4. This is the relvent part of the judgement...

    The court said the right to a Fair trial is unqualified but what is fair will depend on the circumstances of each case. Then...

    I also note that Liberty is providing assistance to one of the applicants.
  5. So they can't refuse to say who was driving a speeding vehicle, but surely they can "forget" who was driving and therefore be unable to tell the police who it was.

    There's a precedent - more than one policeman had body swerved a speeding charge on exactly that basis.
  6. Alternatively they could obey the law and drive within the posted speed limit.
  7. Totally off on a tangent - you know if someone confeese to a priest in a confession booth in church, does the priest have to keep that quiet (by church laws or summit?)
  8. Assuming it was them, devex.

    But yes, agreed, if they weren't speeding in the first place, then it wouldn't even be an issue.
  9. That would indeed be the preferred option.

    I'm not condoning speeding, just pointing out that some of the people whose duty it is to enforce speeding laws have used that excuse to avoid the consequences of breaking those laws.

    That being the case, they can hardly complain when a member of the public pulls the same trick.
  10. Mr_Fingerz

    Mr_Fingerz LE Book Reviewer

    In the RC church, a priest is bound to not repeat anything that he hears during the sacrament of reconciliation (what used to be called confession).

    I'm sure that if a priest did hear a confession that included details of some heinous crime that he would seek the guidance of his own confessor and Bishop before deciding what course of action (if any) he should take.
  11. Thats always one that confused me, the church protecting the 'rights' of crims when if someone confessed to a 'normal' person who didnt report it no doubt will be jailed for witholding information.

    There we are then.
  12. The point is that we all know we have the right to remain silent. We have had this right for many many years. Now the court set up to protect our rights has ruled that we only have rights when we are not in a car.

    A murder suspect has the right to remain silent.

    A paedophile suspect has the right to remain silent.

    Any one of us in our car has forfeited that right by owning a car.

    What hope for proper right and justice when judges can think in Orwellian doublespeak?
  13. In response to Stephanie-

    A priest can go to the police if he believes that a crime (e.g. murder) will go unpunished or if an innocent person is being punished for something they did not commit. But only with express permission from a Bishop or Cardinal.

    Its all a bit strange!
  14. ...........but if you suspect that one of your priests is knobbing a choir boy, you move him to another Diocese as quickly and quietly as possible, hoping that he doesn't do it again.
  15. Its all really strange, your above example states if the priest 'believes', so if he doesnt believe and doesnt report it, where does that leave him and his faith - cos surely by not doing anything about it he has more or less let whatever the crime is continue???? Load of nonsense.

    Back to the thread, just gets ridiculous everyday doesnt it, pick and choosing where human rights apply - maybe they can put this new law to murderers and rapists, just a thought.

    Although you shouldnt speed, everyone does it, should a speeder's face be plastered all over the papers over a murderer?