Who Are the PC/Human Rights 'Drivers'?

#1
I'm sitting on the outside of the UK looking in so please bear with me

Reading some of the outrage stories on here it seems that most folks in the UK - the 'silent majority' - apparently feel that the pendulum has gone too far the other way in terms of Political Correctness and Human Rights.

So if the majority think it's wrong to let prisoners out because they miss their mummy, or need to look after their brood, or that some fat cow in the OB gets 30 K because she's too much of a heifer to pass a physical test, who is it that is 'driving' this insidious thought fascism? Is it just a small group of Grauniadistas, i.e. the chattering socialist classes of Islington, school teachers and the mejia?

Why the fuck are they allowed so much control?
 
#2
Because the government are basically doing what the hell they want and ignoring the protests of the few, while the many will complain but wont do much more than that in case their benefits are affected. People complain and grumble, but apathy is rife.
 
#3
No, the media just move haplessly from one story to the next, just like vultures do with carcasses. The only difference is that if vultures don't find enough carcasses, they can't just make one up.

It's the lawyers who are driving this. The judgements are made in the courts by legal people. Who are also like vultures (they even dress to look like them) and who, if they don't find enough carrion passing through their courts, just make some up with new stupid rulings, the expected legal challenges, retrials and appeals.

This is nothing new, in the peasants revolt all the peasants asked for was for the king to consider executing all the lawyers...
 
#5
It seems to me it is mainly some people feeling the need to be outraged on behalf of others.
On another site I use.Someone was bleating about the Mods,and the bleater complained about "abuse of power" the usual crap.The thread got locked.
The bleater then started another along the lines of "My Grandfather died fighting this sort of thing"
I added,helpfully I thought,that my Grandad had died in POW camp,as he fell from a guard tower.
This only added fuel to the fire and the bleater in chief telling me how the OP was deeply offended and hurt by my comments.
The person who was so "offended" never said a word.
 

FORMER_FYRDMAN

LE
Book Reviewer
#6
Rather unwisely, we have imported a load of alien garbage into our legal system - particularly the idea that we are told what we can do, as opposed to what we can't do, which is a major departure from 800 years of precedent-based law. The politicians like this because they can enforce their prejudice of choice using the legal system (take a bow Harriet Harman), without the need to win an argument or carry popular support with them and they can also pile blame off onto Europe when they discover that an expensive but popular policy (deporting foreign criminals) is illegal under European rules. The lawyers like it because it opens up a whole new wonderland of litigation (take a bow Cherie Blair) when 'rights' are breeched/feelings hurt etc and it does so in such a way as to make it almost impossible for public bodies not to fall foul of it if they try to do their job. The Eurocracy like it because it's their preferred way of imposing themselves across Europe (take a bow the entire EU Commission) - at least in the countries silly enough to take this stuff as gospel - France is not a member of this group.

We're not going to see an end to this nonsense unless we clarify that Westminster is sovereign and therefore MP's can be held to account - currently they just point at Brussels and go blithely on (Paging Mr Cameron) and, now that all this stuff is an integral part of the UK's statutory law, the process takes on a life of its own and the bureaucratic and legal systems automatically conform to it without any further need for a champion.
 
#7
Rather unwisely, we have imported a load of alien garbage into our legal system - particularly the idea that we are told what we can do, as opposed to what we can't do, which is a major departure from 800 years of precedent-based law. The politicians like this because they can enforce their prejudice of choice using the legal system (take a bow Harriet Harman), without the need to win an argument or carry popular support with them and they can also pile blame off onto Europe when they discover that an expensive but popular policy (deporting foreign criminals) is illegal under European rules. The lawyers like it because it opens up a whole new wonderland of litigation (take a bow Cherie Blair) when 'rights' are breeched/feelings hurt etc and it does so in such a way as to make it almost impossible for public bodies not to fall foul of it if they try to do their job. The Eurocracy like it because it's their preferred way of imposing themselves across Europe (take a bow the entire EU Commission) - at least in the countries silly enough to take this stuff as gospel - France is not a member of this group.

We're not going to see an end to this nonsense unless we clarify that Westminster is sovereign and therefore MP's can be held to account - currently they just point at Brussels and go blithely on (Paging Mr Cameron) and, now that all this stuff is an integral part of the UK's statutory law, the process takes on a life of its own and the bureaucratic and legal systems automatically conform to it without any further need for a champion.
An excellent summation - thank you.
 
#8
I often find that fear is a motivator in this PC nonsense. If I speak out about racism, that black man won't rob me. If I march against anti-Islamic stuff, those nice terrorists will not bomb me, etc etc.

Also the "Human Rights" card is becoming a complete joke when we protect the rights of the aggressor but the victims can just push off.

Hopefully the pendulum will reach it's apogee (?) and start swinging back towards sensible soon.
 
#9
I often find that fear is a motivator in this PC nonsense. If I speak out about racism, that black man won't rob me. If I march against anti-Islamic stuff, those nice terrorists will not bomb me, etc etc.

Also the "Human Rights" card is becoming a complete joke when we protect the rights of the aggressor but the victims can just push off.

Hopefully the pendulum will reach it's apogee (?) and start swinging back towards sensible soon.
I won't be holding my breath.
 
#11
This cunt who bleats on about 'uman rights and immigration dont see her letting any stay at her gaff

I wouldn't piss on her or her family if she/they were on fire.

If it were legal to hunt cunts like her, I would.
 
#12
Nail-Head interface described perfectly there by Former Fyrdman.
I would only add 'Spin Doctors' and 'Political Advisors' to the list of the guilty as they also have a vested interest in spreading this doctrine because it makes for an easy life for them and they can 'demolish' opponents by allocating them to any one of thousands of human right breaches.
 
#13
I'm sitting on the outside of the UK looking in so please bear with me

Why the fuck are they allowed so much control?
Apathy. And its rife on here, too. Look at a recent post concerning the erosion of pension benefits.
 
#16
Might it all be due to the fact that Teflon B'Liar and Missus are lawyers. The EHCR, nothing wrong with this, just the way it has been worded and drafted here in the UK. Mainly the way the stinking, fornicating Fifth Column of 'Umin Rites' lawyers have jumped onto the band wagon, and are making Cash hand over fist - Money for Old Rope by certain firms of Lawyers (No Names, No Pack Drill) but we know who they are...

Political Correctness.... 'Kultural Marxism' as espoused by the Socialist Left and Euro-Communists at the centre of the EU. There is a big difference between Human Rights and what is pejoratively stated as 'Umin Rites' -- people abusing the Human Rights legislation (Section 8) for any reason, usually silly, to excuse their behaviour or delay punishments under the common and criminal law of the UK.

One wonders why the previous Conservative administration under John Major did not bring in the UK's version of the EHCR, and if they had, what differences would there be to that of the then Blair Labour administration.
 
#17
I often find that fear is a motivator in this PC nonsense. If I speak out about racism, that black man won't rob me. If I march against anti-Islamic stuff, those nice terrorists will not bomb me, etc etc.

Also the "Human Rights" card is becoming a complete joke when we protect the rights of the aggressor but the victims can just push off.

Hopefully the pendulum will reach it's apogee (?) and start swinging back towards sensible soon.
Back towards sensible, did I miss something, when was sensible?????
 

B_AND_T

MIA
Book Reviewer
#18
Ugly lezzers are to blame!
 
#19
I don't actually think that it's the lawyers who are to blame - as someone has said, they're vultures, and vultures don't actually kill things. They just make the most of the situation, scavenging and picking at the bones.

The problem is very simply that 10% of the population spend their entire time being outraged. Half of those will be outraged in a right-wing, "PC gone mad", "immigrants taking over" sort of way - but of course extreme right-wing stuff (racism, essentially) is (quite rightly) frowned upon and downright illegal in some ways. This leaves the other 5%, people like Chakrawhatshername to get very outraged in a lefty, everyone's special sort of way and because - no matter what levels of complete window licking cretinousnessness they achieve - it's not illegal and it's very hard to argue against the basic concept of human rights for everyone.
 
#20
I don't actually think that it's the lawyers who are to blame - as someone has said, they're vultures, and vultures don't actually kill things. They just make the most of the situation, scavenging and picking at the bones.
Agreed.

The problem is very simply that 10% of the population spend their entire time being outraged. Half of those will be outraged in a right-wing, "PC gone mad", "immigrants taking over" sort of way - but of course extreme right-wing stuff (racism, essentially) is (quite rightly) frowned upon and downright illegal in some ways.
Agreed.

This leaves the other 5%, people like Chakrawhatshername to get very outraged in a lefty, everyone's special sort of way and because - no matter what levels of complete window licking cretinousnessness they achieve - it's not illegal.
Maybe it should be. After all extreme leftism is just as dangerous as extreme rightism. And also potentially just as racist. Communism breeds xenophobia.

it's very hard to argue against the basic concept of human rights for everyone.
I disagree here too. If a person by their actions impinges on someone elses (correctly applied) human rights, then they should forfeit their own. Simples.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top