Supreme Court: Soldiers Abroad Not Protected By Human Rights

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by soleil, Jun 30, 2010.

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. ...but the people they are fighting are according to the effin' lawyers FFS!

    :x

    Rodney2q
     
  2. Lets get this strait, soldiers do not have human rights but the f**king Ragheads do, FFS The Chimps are running the Zoo, and the Courts again
     
  3. So if the PM goes out to visit the troops, is he protected by human rights laws?
     
  4. Now, let me get this right, the Human Rights part of UK law doesn't cover British troops, but the rest of it does?

    Can we now pick and choose which part of the British judicial system we want to adhere to?

    It's either all or nothing,
     
  5. I dont understand, are you advocating that soldiers should be kept from life threatening siituations, that they should have the right to privacy at all times?

    Here are what civilians enjoy

    * 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

    So, should soldiers have access to all these rights?
     
  6. Don't be so bloody pedantic, my post was in context to the link posted, the byline of which was "The country's highest court has quashed a landmark ruling that British soldiers serving abroad are protected by human rights laws at all times"

    And then there is this part, note the bold again "Despite this, the Supreme Court has held that soldiers leave the UK jurisdiction, in so far as the Human Rights Act is concerned, when they leave a UK army base,"

    But in reality, they face UK law if something goes pear shaped, so no Human Rights, but the full force of the Law if it goes wrong.

    BTW, has your resignation been accepted yet or are you still in "talks" about it?
     
  7. You asked the question, "can we pick and choose . . . . "

    Well, first of all we apparently can. And with good cause, can soldiers do their job whilst being prevented from being put in harms way?
     
  8. Does harm as you call it include heatstroke, which to my knowledge should have been covered by H&S regulations which haven't been quashed. That was what the original ruling was based on, someone dying not from IED or being shot at, all part and parcel of a soldiers lot, but from negligence which is covered by the first point you made on your post above namely * the right to life.

    Where is Pte Jason Smith's right to life guaranteed ?? Obviously not by the Supreme Court's decision.
     
  9. As you say, it should have been covered by H&S.
     
  10. And by the HRA too, due to the guarantee of a Right To Life !!
     
  11. You will, of course, as an amateur politician, be aware of HRA98 Schedule 1, Article 4, s3(b)? As well as the extensive case law at ECHR regarding military service? Especially in regard of Articles 2, 8, 9, 10 & 11, as well as 4.

    Or are you already in opposition?