Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by DeskPilot, Jun 30, 2010.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Spotted this on the BBC site.
So what do you think of it?
So a transformer/trans whatever has the right to claim a pension at 60 and not 65 as he should of, because the human rights act says so. Yet a soldiers has no right of any protection from being misused and mistreated by the state.
Its a crazy country we live in!
Here are our human rights :
* the right to life
* freedom from torture and degrading treatment
* freedom from slavery and forced labour
* the right to liberty
* the right to a fair trial
* the right not to be punished for something that wasn't a crime when you did it
* the right to respect for private and family life
* freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefs
* freedom of expression
* freedom of assembly and association
* the right to marry and to start a family
* the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms
* the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
* the right to an education
* the right to participate in free elections
* the right not to be subjected to the death penalty
You really think that soldiiers cando their job properly if given all of these rights?
I'll grant you that with some issues, yes the military cannot operate effectively if these things have to be taken into consideration but it's a bit galling to think that a blanket ban has been imposed on soldiers human rights when you see chavs getting away with murder, or not being punished accordingly because it violates THEIR human rights. Why shouldn't they have the at least the chance of a right to life by being afforded the luxury of decent equipment and protection?
Surely it is not Soldiers basic Human Rights that are at stake but the application of Human Rights legislation when outside the UK on operational Duty. As far as I can read rights are not waived but should not take precedence over operational duties. Back in Catterick no problem, out in badlands operation tempo/risk takes precedence.
I'm having trouble getting outraged, to be honest; most of the time human rights comes up here it gets nothing but abuse. IMO the best outcome would be the wholesale abolition of the Human Rights Act tomorrow, or at the least an addition of a clause stating that commission of a serious offence abrogates these rights. If soldiers need extra protection then stick another clause into the AFA or Health and Safety at Work Act or similar.
I think that you have most of those rights already. Now Health and Safety is an issue if we are losing troops to heatstroke and RTA's. You are covered by that even on operations!
I cannot see the services have the right to freedom of expression or privacy, can you? The right to freedom from degrading treatment?
Much as I support our Armed forces I cannot see the way of life we chose as fitting in with those rights others enjoy.
Just saw Jason Smith's mum's lawyer on the news, fcuking dwarfs freak me out. My own two pence is that the human rights brigade under the last two PMs have gone far too far, with the rights of the individual being put above the common good.
'The people's good is the highest law'
Whet, apart from in training when locker inspections are vital can you remember having anything more than a cursory inspection as a grown up? I certainly cant and I was a grunt who generally cant be grown up!
Oh yes - aircraft standards inspections for one.
And the odd time on ROPs
If you want full human rights don't join the British military then. Last I checked there's not been conscription for a fair while now. I'd be surprised if you could get away with publicly slagging off any company you worked for without a bollocking should a superior hear you and you'd likely be on a disciplinary if you gobbed off to a boss once again regardless of who you work for.
Basic research and observation isn't your forte, is it?
Well I'm not an expert, so I looked up what my 'human rights' actually are:
I can't see why a certain section of the workforce need to have these rights removed in certain situations, In fact to remove them would seem to me to treat those people as second class citizens.
Not really an answer, but gut feeling says I don't like this ruling.
Addmittedly, it does say:
"Anyone who is in the UK for any reason has fundamental human rights which government and public authorities are legally obliged to respect. These became law as part of the Human Rights Act 1998."
So its probably a legal technicality in that only people in the UK are protected by the human rights act and that's why the judges ruled it the way they did.
Separate names with a comma.