Torygraph bleating about Human Rights again

#1
Al-Qaeda terrorists launch human rights bid - Telegraph

Moaning like bitches about terrorists appealing to the ECHR on a point of fact rather than a point of law.

Then revealing toward the end of the article that the characteristic instrument of the despot, the Public Interest Immunity Certificate, was issued by HMG to prevent the trial and appeal courts from even seeing the evidence which might support the terrorists' contention that the evidence used against them was adduced under torture.

What a total farce "justice" in this country has become. Note the common law principle that PII certificates must be accepted by judges at face value - i.e. the basis of their being issued must not be probed.

(edit) - the things once learns. Seemingly said common law principle was overturned by the House of Lords.
 
#2
Yes, they are moaning like bitches and this is a hangover from the time when the State (HMG New Labour)was happy to bin civil rights and dodge the rule of law to keep themselves in office.

But I don't think all that should hide the fundammental issue
about this being a judgement over fact rather than law.

If a court does something which is contrary to a law that all parties have signed up to it seems reasonable that an independent body should sit over it and make sure individual countries abide by it, otherwise there is no point having it.

But over fact? Sorry, you normally have to win a war and invade somebody to have that kind of control over someone else's legal system.
 
#3
But over fact? Sorry, you normally have to win a war and invade somebody to have that kind of control over someone else's legal system.
Surely the problem is the UK courts, through the PII certificates, have (potentially) concealed the facts that make a proper determination of the law possible?
 
#4
Can we invade Belgium while it doesn't have a legitimate government and re-jig the euro-bollocks laws? mind you it would help if we had an army to do that :-(
 
#5
I'm not sure what sort of oversight exists over PIIs, perhaps it should be strengthened.

But we do have the right to actually bang up some of these terrorists from time to time and we should be able to do so in a manner that is fair, but does not then make it infinitely harder to catch the next one.

PIIs have a definite role to play in defending society.
 
#6
And in todays news Taliban de-head 16 people at a party for dancing to music! And the torygraph thinks these ******* deserve the same rights a decent human beings?

Any taliban captured should be shot in the head and their corpses passed through an industrial mincer and fed to the fishes. (no burial = no virgins)
 
#7
And in todays news Taliban de-head 16 people at a party for dancing to music! And the torygraph thinks these ******* deserve the same rights a decent human beings?

Any taliban captured should be shot in the head and their corpses passed through an industrial mincer and fed to the fishes. (no burial = no virgins)
Aaaaand breathe....in through the mouth.....out through the mouth.
 
#8
And in todays news Taliban de-head 16 people at a party for dancing to music! And the torygraph thinks these ******* deserve the same rights a decent human beings?

Any taliban captured should be shot in the head and their corpses passed through an industrial mincer and fed to the fishes. (no burial = no virgins)
That is precisely my sort of moderate post! 100% agreed with.
 
#10
The ECHR can go take a running jump.

People who violate others' human rights should be stripped of any and all claim of human rights violations against themselves.

Why should we be pandering to a bunch of terrorists? So what? They may have been tortured with the knowledge of British Security Forces, but frankly, I don't give a rats. One was part of the plot to blow up a shopping centre. One was part of the July 7th bombings. They have NO RIGHT to bleat about their human rights when they plotted such barbarous acts, and the sooner people wake up and smell the coffee the better. Murderers and those who plot murder should be locked away until they are no danger to society (or dead).

Human Rights should not be allowed for people like these, because they would have to act like human beings rather than wild animals to get that concession.
 
#11
The ECHR can go take a running jump.

People who violate others' human rights should be stripped of any and all claim of human rights violations against themselves.

Why should we be pandering to a bunch of terrorists? So what? They may have been tortured with the knowledge of British Security Forces, but frankly, I don't give a rats. One was part of the plot to blow up a shopping centre. One was part of the July 7th bombings. They have NO RIGHT to bleat about their human rights when they plotted such barbarous acts, and the sooner people wake up and smell the coffee the better. Murderers and those who plot murder should be locked away until they are no danger to society (or dead).

Human Rights should not be allowed for people like these, because they would have to act like human beings rather than wild animals to get that concession.
The entire point of universal Human Rights is exactly that - they are UNIVERSAL. Afforded to the most deeply unpopular strata of society as well as the day-to-day, run of the mill Joe in the street. That's what underpins the entire principle of the concept - there's no getting out of our obligations to honour those rights.

When you start differentiating between whose rights you protect, and whose you don't, you are on one f***ing slippery slope; as Father Niemoller said in 1933.

Some deeply horrible characters exploit the nature of Human Rights legislation in order to stick up a stiff middle finger at the very society which protects, feeds, clothes and shelters them - I won't deny that, and I don't think that anyone with a 3-figure IQ ever could. However, that bitter taste is part of the price we pay for the protection afforded to us all by HR legislation, because supposedly civilised societies (Germany for one) have proven by their past actions that such legislation is needed to protect us. From our own societal instincts.

And on that note, I am going to clack a large Glenfiddich and hit the hay.......
 
#12
I still say they should sod off, particularly in cases like this.

There's enough injustice done in the name of human rights to make me wonder whether it is universal, or just for those who want to use it as a tool to hide their crimes under while they bleat about how, after killing a load of people, some nasty man shouted at them and made them all hurty.
 
#13
I still say they should sod off, particularly in cases like this.

There's enough injustice done in the name of human rights to make me wonder whether it is universal, or just for those who want to use it as a tool to hide their crimes under while they bleat about how, after killing a load of people, some nasty man shouted at them and made them all hurty.
Like it or lump it mate, those accused and indeed convicted of some utterly appalling crimes (I'll use Ian Huntley as an example) have to be afforded rights and protections; mark of a civilised society, and all that.

Or, are you advocating that we simply let mob justice prevail, have them ripped to bits in the street, and we wind the clock back 300 years??
 
#14
Not at all. I do, however advocate a return of a life sentence being a life sentence, and prisons being places of punishment and incarceration- a deterrent to further crime rather than a lifestyle better than mine. Three meals a day, yep, but the gym, pool tables, televisions and all that jazz can go. If they want exercise, there should be chain gangs.

I'm just pissed off with criminals getting all weepy about their human rights when they really can't be arsed about anyone else's.
 
#15
And in todays news Taliban de-head 16 people at a party for dancing to music! And the torygraph thinks these ******* deserve the same rights a decent human beings?

Any taliban captured should be shot in the head and their corpses passed through an industrial mincer and fed to the fishes. (no burial = no virgins)
Yes, I read about these bastards killing people for enjoying music. I would love to find them and drop them off at an X-Factor/Gangsta Rap/Elton john gig where they can do something a bit more useful.
 
#17
Not at all. I do, however advocate a return of a life sentence being a life sentence, and prisons being places of punishment and incarceration- a deterrent to further crime rather than a lifestyle better than mine. Three meals a day, yep, but the gym, pool tables, televisions and all that jazz can go. If they want exercise, there should be chain gangs.

I'm just pissed off with criminals getting all weepy about their human rights when they really can't be arsed about anyone else's.
Yup, I'd go with that. I don't entirely buy the "Prisons are for rehabilitation and not punishment" argument entirely, and I abhor the concept of "Sentenced to 20 yrs, serve 10" concept brought in under the last Govt as an economy measure for prison places. That said, whilst prisoners are in custody, they are the responsibility of the state and have rights (which, damn shame, the prison staff didn't honour on the day in question - I'm sure they'll get over it). Now I didn't even stifle a snigger when I read some con had got to Ian Huntley with a shank - Ian Huntley sues prison service for £100,000 after razor attack | UK news | The Guardian - but he has a right to protection from violence.

But the fact that they can't be arsed about other people's right's doesn't negate their own.
 
#18
It would be interesting to see how many cases would be heard, at length, if the legal aid was capped at say £10,000. Would the likes of Mr Shiner be happy to trawl the world for cases?

I will admit, I have no idea as to wether the legal aid lawyers do it out of a sense of 'Justice for all.' or if it is easy money. But I do note that Matrix chambers seem to make a large amount out of the taxpayer's cash, based on legislation that was created by Mr Blair's government, with the best intentions no doubt, just lucky the prime minister's wife was in the right place at the right time. God forbid a tory bunch of corrupt ne'er do wells should try the same trick.
 
#19
Al-Qaeda terrorists launch human rights bid - Telegraph

Moaning like bitches about terrorists appealing to the ECHR on a point of fact rather than a point of law.

Then revealing toward the end of the article that the characteristic instrument of the despot, the Public Interest Immunity Certificate, was issued by HMG to prevent the trial and appeal courts from even seeing the evidence which might support the terrorists' contention that the evidence used against them was adduced under torture.

What a total farce "justice" in this country has become. Note the common law principle that PII certificates must be accepted by judges at face value - i.e. the basis of their being issued must not be probed.

(edit) - the things once learns. Seemingly said common law principle was overturned by the House of Lords.
**** off, you tool. They were convicted ONLY on evidence obtained in the UK. I don't give a toss how many times the ISS fucked their arses. And your right, you can only appeal to the ECHR on a point of law, not of fact. So, how has this complete waste of taxpayers money, in support of convicted terrorists ever seen the light of day?
 
#20
**** off, you tool.
Duly noted.

If the evidence was pertinent it should have been disclosed. I am happy for the ECHR to make a determination on this. If they rule against the terrorists, then so be it.

The alternative would be to allow the UK government/courts to conceal evidence, and thus prevent the ECHR (or ECJ in an EU Law case) from being able to superintend the judgments for want of evidence. Even if the judgments were wrong in law.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top