[Angus]

Originally Posted by PaulyJ

You can't do that Poster, Human rights must apply to all humans, else they become non human in the brain of society, as in peodophiles, and rapist's and to a degree terrorist's. They become animals, and thus outside the realms of understanding, and reasoning. If you extend that to ALL criminals, even the girl who shop lifted to feed her heroin habit which she gained because her BF wanted a partner in misery, and she was to weak, foolish or what have you, to say no, then you are saying once she is convicted she forfits the right to have a decent level of treatment in the prison system. The prison service will soon figure out they can save a heap of cash buy sticking 10 women in a cell currently serving 2, the food budget could be slashed by serving tripe 7 days a week. If your intention is to release this girl one day then she would surely be a hollow loveless, careless person, and she would bring that back into society.

What about Stefen Kishcow, wrongly Convicted of a Child murder, no human right's means he would not of had a right of appeal, and would of died in jail, an innocent man, and his precious story would of not been told, faith in a "sometimes floored" system assured, 10 years of that, and their would be no such thing as a innocent man in jail, because the only way we know of these things is because he exercised his Human rights, and told his story.

I do realise that there would be positive's to come from your suggestion, such as a reduction in crime, but as all things it is a balancing act, and i fear you have fallen off with this suggestion.

I am 100% sure that if this was the Western Norm then Guantanimo, The Holocost, Ruwanda, Serbia would not be such big deals, as all these cases envolve your very suggestion, if all the Jews we're criminals, rather than Jews could you of lived with their fate?

I would wish to resign from the human race and find an island somewhere and curl up into a ball and die.

I was locked up for 7 days for non payment of council tax, and prison is not the holiday camp people think it is.

Am not following your logic - "Human Rights" are commensurate with "Human Responsibilities" they do not exist in a vacuum. Human Rights legislation is deeply FLAWED because it does not take account of the simple and irrefutable fact that one person exercising his/her "human rights" can infringe another person's "human rights" because rather than having a universal code of behaviour, rights and responsibilities, it has been interpreted to mean an "INDIVIDUAL'S" rights.

You are also being disingenuous by suggesting that I have advocated the same severity of treatment to all convicted criminals, common sense would dictate that the seriousness of the crime and the danger posed to the public must be taken into account, not only when handing down sentences, but also in denying criminals such as murderers, rapists, terrorists, paeodphiles the right to cynically use the legal system they have blithely abused in order to evade their punishment. Such criminals have deprived people of their LIVES, and have relinquished their claims to be treated as normal members of society. They have given up their right to be treated as anything other than what they are. To paraphrase what you say "THEY have RESIGNED from the human race".

In this day and age, where we have sophisticated means of establishing guilt, such as DNA evidence, CCTV etc, there is far less likelihood of miscarriages of justice, and the minority that do occur should not be used as a reason not to protect the law abiding members of society from its most dangerous members.

You use the example of a drug addict shoplifting - well I can assure you that such minor criminals are usually treated well in prison, offered drug counselling and support to come of drugs etc., but there is only so much others can do, and it is more than likely that once released a drug addict will probably re-offend.

You have admitted you were jailed for non payment of council tax and did not enjoy the experience - Well if you did indeed NOT pay your council tax like the rest of us have to, then the powers that be are entitled to follow the proscribed punishment - incarceration, and it is not meant to be a holiday camp or a recreational break. It is meant to also be a deterrent from further offending.

Finally, what the hell are you waffling about regarding the holocaust, Rwanda, Serbia etc. Your argument is ridiculous. You are talking about genocide which is a crime against humanity perpetrated by evil and immoral dictatorships. Please get YOUR facts straight. NOBODY who is remotely sane would ever condone the mass extermination of innocent people. As for Guantanamo Bay, that was a situation where prisoners were being abused in contravention of international law (in existence long before the present Human Rights legislation).

[PaulyJ]

Originally Posted by angus58

Am not following your logic - "Human Rights" are commensurate with "Human Responsibilities" they do not exist in a vacuum. Human Rights legislation is deeply FLAWED because it does not take account of the simple and irrefutable fact that one person exercising his/her "human rights" can infringe another person's "human rights" because rather than having a universal code of behaviour, rights and responsibilities, it has been interpreted to mean an "INDIVIDUAL'S" rights.

You are also being disingenuous by suggesting that I have advocated the same severity of treatment to all convicted criminals, common sense would dictate that the seriousness of the crime and the danger posed to the public must be taken into account, not only when handing down sentences, but also in denying criminals such as murderers, rapists, terrorists, paeodphiles the right to cynically use the legal system they have blithely abused in order to evade their punishment. Such criminals have deprived people of their LIVES, and have relinquished their claims to be treated as normal members of society. They have given up their right to be treated as anything other than what they are. To paraphrase what you say "THEY have RESIGNED from the human race".

In this day and age, where we have sophisticated means of establishing guilt, such as DNA evidence, CCTV etc, there is far less likelihood of miscarriages of justice, and the minority that do occur should not be used as a reason not to protect the law abiding members of society from its most dangerous members.

You use the example of a drug addict shoplifting - well I can assure you that such minor criminals are usually treated well in prison, offered drug counselling and support to come of drugs etc., but there is only so much others can do, and it is more than likely that once released a drug addict will probably re-offend.

You have admitted you were jailed for non payment of council tax and did not enjoy the experience - Well if you did indeed NOT pay your council tax like the rest of us have to, then the powers that be are entitled to follow the proscribed punishment - incarceration, and it is not meant to be a holiday camp or a recreational break. It is meant to also be a deterrent from further offending.

Finally, what the hell are you waffling about regarding the holocaust, Rwanda, Serbia etc. Your argument is ridiculous. You are talking about genocide which is a crime against humanity perpetrated by evil and immoral dictatorships. Please get YOUR facts straight. NOBODY who is remotely sane would ever condone the mass extermination of innocent people. As for Guantanamo Bay, that was a situation where prisoners were being abused in contravention of international law (in existence long before the present Human Rights legislation).

Refering back to your original post you said

"As far as I'm concerned all criminals should forfeit any recourse to Human Rights or any other Rights enshrined in Law."

My logic was to say that your suggestion would lead to ALL criminals being treated like animals. Thus in a strive to cut cost's Prisons, no longer forced by law to treat the criminal humanely would treat them in-humanely, or would you trust common sense to ensure only the rapist's end up in overcrowded cells, bearing in mind the way some American troops treated the Guantanimo bay P.O.W's it is not a safe assumption. They we're all treated in-humanely even though they had been convicted of Nothing. This is the way in a lawless environment, individuals with power abuse it depending on their own subjective views.

Fair point about Murderers resigning from the human race, Regardless of what the murderer deserves, or does not deserve, if you treat that Murderer in-humanely BY LAW then the Law is saying it cannot make a mistake (flying in the face of common sense), else it is saying the mistakes we will inevitably make will be a price worth paying. Your suggesting taking all Murderers right to appeal away, clearly it would not help the innocent man in jail, but how would it help keep murderers off the street, presumably the facts of the case would not change with the passage of time unless a mistake HAS been made.

In which case the only thing achieved is to prevent miscarriages coming to light.

The point i was making regarding my incarceration which you seem to of percieved as a suggestion that i did not deserve it somehow, (how you did that without your tongue firmly fixed in the side of your mouth i don't know) was that people believe criminals get off lightly because of the relaxed conditions inside. This is rubish spread by the press and anyone that has spent time in prison knows it is not easy.

Regarding my last point

The Holocaust was indeed perpetrated by Evil dictatorship and it is only Laws such as the Human Rights Law which stops another Evil Dictatorship forming. The dictatorship was the authority for the inhumane treatment but, most German people went along with it, informed on the whereabouts of Jew's, and captured Jew's this was because the Law said it was ok, and my point is if you say the Law should say remove human rights from prisoners then you are on a slippery road to a dictatorship.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by PaulyJ

Refering back to your original post you said

"As far as I'm concerned all criminals should forfeit any recourse to Human Rights or any other Rights enshrined in Law."

My logic was to say that your suggestion would lead to ALL criminals being treated like animals. Thus in a strive to cut cost's Prisons, no longer forced by law to treat the criminal humanely would treat them in-humanely, or would you trust common sense to ensure only the rapist's end up in overcrowded cells, bearing in mind the way some American troops treated the Guantanimo bay P.O.W's it is not a safe assumption. They we're all treated in-humanely even though they had been convicted of Nothing. This is the way in a lawless environment, individuals with power abuse it depending on their own subjective views.

Fair point about Murderers resigning from the human race, Regardless of what the murderer deserves, or does not deserve, if you treat that Murderer in-humanely BY LAW then the Law is saying it cannot make a mistake (flying in the face of common sense), else it is saying the mistakes we will inevitably make will be a price worth paying. Your suggesting taking all Murderers right to appeal away, clearly it would not help the innocent man in jail, but how would it help keep murderers off the street, presumably the facts of the case would not change with the passage of time unless a mistake HAS been made.

In which case the only thing achieved is to prevent miscarriages coming to light.

The point i was making regarding my incarceration which you seem to of percieved as a suggestion that i did not deserve it somehow, (how you did that without your tongue firmly fixed in the side of your mouth i don't know) was that people believe criminals get off lightly because of the relaxed conditions inside. This is rubish spread by the press and anyone that has spent time in prison knows it is not easy.

Regarding my last point

The Holocaust was indeed perpetrated by Evil dictatorship and it is only Laws such as the Human Rights Law which stops another Evil Dictatorship forming. The dictatorship was the authority for the inhumane treatment but, most German people went along with it, informed on the whereabouts of Jew's, and captured Jew's this was because the Law said it was ok, and my point is if you say the Law should say remove human rights from prisoners then you are on a slippery road to a dictatorship.

Firstly, you quote only the first part of my original post - I go on to say:Instead of Human Rights legisation we should have a Bill of Rights that gives protection and privileges to the law abiding people of this country, that can only be invoked so long as people adhere to their responsibilities to be good citizens"
My point is that the situation at present is all about RIGHTS with no corresponding RESPONSIBILITIES.

I also said:" I agree there should be a sliding scale depending on the severity of the crime, and most importantly, the human rights of the VICTIM should always take precedence over human rights of the criminal."

The ability to appeal a conviction has been part of the English Justice System
for hundreds of years, what I object to is the additional rights afforded in Human Rights legislation that often fly in the face of commonsense and logic.
Certain categories of crime are beyond redemption and the suggestion that rehabilitation is possible is laughable.

I don't see where I have said anywhere that all criminals should be treated inhumanely. What I am suggesting is that prison should offer basic sustenance, shelter and medical care, with no other luxuries and amenities. Feed them, water them, shelter them and treat them if ill and that's IT.
Your experience of prison was not nice - well it's not meant to be, is it?

Your statement that an entire nation is responsible for the evil actions of their rulers/government etc, is ridiculous- MOST German people were unaware of what Hitler's regime was doing to the Jews, Gays, Disabled etc, and were under the jackboot of the nazis who ruled by fear and intimidation. I, for example, am no more responsible for the evil actions of this government for taking us into an illegal war in Iraq than you are. If you think we are not already living under a form of dictatorship you are deluding yourself. What you appear to be suggesting is that if it was suddenly legal in this country, for example, to pick on and intimidate a particular ethnic minority, everybody would be doing it. Again, you are presupposing that human beings are mindless automatons incapable of acting morally or ethically unless there is legislation in place telling them what is right or wrong. I submit the majority
of human beings are perfectly aware of what is moral and ethical behaviour, and those that choose to step outside the boundaries of that behaviour cannot then complain about the consequences.

The ordinary citizen in this country has had Human Rights legislation imposed upon them which is unworkable in practice since to invoke one's individual rights often infringes upon and offends someone else's, so whose takes precedence?

[BB_Eye]

Originally Posted by angus58

Your statement that an entire nation is responsible for the evil actions of their rulers/government etc, is ridiculous- MOST German people were unaware of what Hitler's regime was doing to the Jews, Gays, Disabled etc, and were under the jackboot of the nazis who ruled by fear and intimidation. I, for example, am no more responsible for the evil actions of this government for taking us into an illegal war in Iraq than you are. If you think we are not already living under a form of dictatorship you are deluding yourself. What you appear to be suggesting is that if it was suddenly legal in this country, for example, to pick on and intimidate a particular ethnic minority, everybody would be doing it. Again, you are presupposing that human beings are mindless automatons incapable of acting morally or ethically unless there is legislation in place telling them what is right or wrong. I submit the majority
of human beings are perfectly aware of what is moral and ethical behaviour, and those that choose to step outside the boundaries of that behaviour cannot then complain about the consequences.

The ordinary citizen in this country has had Human Rights legislation imposed upon them which is unworkable in practice since to invoke one's individual rights often infringes upon and offends someone else's, so whose takes precedence?

It sounds like you've taken a very naive worldview. The final solution wasn't a closely guarded secret in Germany. It was happening under the Germans' noses and it is often human nature to deceive ourselves and justify the most awful things, so not only did the Germans share the moral responsibility of the actions of their leadership, they were doing what any other country would have done in the same situation. Society is always going to fall prey to evil if there are no laws to teach people otherwise. I urge you to take a long hard look at our history if you think human beings are naturally good. A law can only mean something if we can apply it to everybody including ourselves. It is thus with taking the life of another human being. You have to ask yourself that if a truly dangerous, malicious and evil individual were locked away from society, how does revenge make any sense? I can tell you what doesn't make sense. For a society to tell a criminal 'don't do as I do, do as I say'.

I'm sorry to hear you think human rights laws are unworkable in practice. Could you elaborate further on why you think some people's human rights are invasive of others? I can't say I agree.

[NettoSuperstar!]

Originally Posted by angus58

Typical example of political correctness gone mad - apparently you're not supposed to defend yourself in any way since it might infringe the attacker's human rights to kick the crap out of you

bollocks you have the right to defend yourself with reasonable force

[NettoSuperstar!]

Also you wanna think of it this way...had baby P lived he'd more than likely have grown up to be a little ****, much like the two brothers that just got sentenced for beating up the two boys....but look at the life he would have had, what should you expect? Hes going to be your average law abiding citizen??...we have no right to sit in judgement or condone human rights abuses on anyone. We have the right to lock people up for the safety of others, thats it!

[InOne]

Originally Posted by NettoSuperstar!

Also you wanna think of it this way...had baby P lived he'd more than likely have grown up to be a little ****, much like the two brothers that just got sentenced for beating up the two boys....but look at the life he would have had, what should you expect? Hes going to be your average law abiding citizen??...we have no right to sit in judgement or condone human rights abuses on anyone. We have the right to lock people up for the safety of others, thats it!

That is a very blunt but true point. The cycle just continues.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by BB_Eye

It sounds like you've taken a very naive worldview. The final solution wasn't a closely guarded secret in Germany. It was happening under the Germans' noses and it is often human nature to deceive ourselves and justify the most awful things, so not only did the Germans share the moral responsibility of the actions of their leadership, they were doing what any other country would have done in the same situation. Society is always going to fall prey to evil if there are no laws to teach people otherwise. I urge you to take a long hard look at our history if you think human beings are naturally good. A law can only mean something if we can apply it to everybody including ourselves. It is thus with taking the life of another human being. You have to ask yourself that if a truly dangerous, malicious and evil individual were locked away from society, how does revenge make any sense? I can tell you what doesn't make sense. For a society to tell a criminal 'don't do as I do, do as I say'.

I'm sorry to hear you think human rights laws are unworkable in practice. Could you elaborate further on why you think some people's human rights are invasive of others? I can't say I agree.

In recent years, there have been serious cynical abuses of the Human Rights Act: You wanted examples:

"An abuse of common sense", said the prime minister about the court's decision not to deport the nine Afghan hijackers and the release of the murderer and rapist Anthony Rice.

It is not. It is the direct result of the ill-considered and badly drafted Human Rights Act, which incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights, and was rammed through Westminster in the first months of the Blair government.

The Afghan hijackers have shown that they could play us and our new fangled system for fools. Nobody can blame them, after all they only used common sense.

AND THIS ARTICLE

By Clive Elliott - Victims of Crime Trust
The abuses and uses of the Human Rights Act loopholes has, for a long time, been an inequitable tool placed in the undeserving hands of law breakers at the expense of justice for law abiders.

As director of Victims of Crime Trust and having, I first became aware that prisoners were receiving greater human rights than their victims when one of my clients wrote to me in 1999.

The lady, whose six-year-old daughter was murdered by a perpetrator - who later successfully sued the prison authorities under the Human Rights Act for £20,000 because treatment for his broken ankle was slightly delayed - was left wondering why he was paid such a vast sum. This compared with the £6,000 CICA compensation she received through the British criminal justice system for her murdered daughter.

It is fundamentally flawed and open to abuse in so much that it was never designed to help a law-abiding society

It seems to victims that criminals and illegal immigrants are immediately elevated to some extraordinary higher status of special treatment under the Human Rights Act, which empowers them to sue for any and every perceived injustice.

Victims observing the type of preferential treatment, respect and advice afforded perpetrators during criminal trials and appeals have quickly realised the Human Rights Act cannot help victims, but only serves those held at her Majesty's pleasure.

The Human Rights Act was originally designed to protect the most vulnerable against abuse.

Nowadays, that remit has been manipulated into a reversal whereby the abusers can use it against the vulnerable.

It is fundamentally flawed and open to abuse in so much that it was never designed to help a law-abiding society."

Should the human rights act be changed ... is the way the law is working at the moment "an abuse of common sense"?

The Human Rights Act should be repealed, not amended. No good has come of it at all, only harm.

It was not needed to secure any genuine civil liberties citizens and foreigners domiciled here should enjoy against the state and each other they did not already have under common and statute law prior to its enactment.

Moreover, it has given the authorities power to impose many quite unnecessary and undesirable restrictions on liberty, especially in relation to freedom of expression, without producing any discernible net benefit as a result.

The way the Act is working at the moment is manifestly an abuse of common sense
Simultaneously, the Act has resulted in judicial decisions that have limited the ability and will of the authorities to restrict liberty in ways they would have been able to before it which are warranted by the exceptional present circumstances arising from the threat of terror.

Judicial decisions invoking the human rights of foreign terror suspects and convicted criminals have seriously compromised national security and public safety.


This is not merely because it has been wrongly applied, as, for example, by the police in not publishing photographs of foreign criminals they are currently seeking after being released into the community rather than deported, out of fear their publication would violate a right to privacy of the foreigners.

Common sense would want the authorities to be able to detain foreign terror suspects without trial and deport dangerous foreign criminals upon completing their sentences, just as it would want primary school teachers to be able to administer suntan cream to their pupils prior to playtime to prevent their exposure to harmful sun-rays, something currently precluded by the act.

The Human Rights Act also abuses common sense by encouraging applications, some successful, for compensation for alleged violations of "human rights" that common sense would deny belonged to those seeking compensation.


I have not for one minute suggested there should be no laws, there would be anarchy without law and order. What I am against is Human Rights legislation which is unnecessary and heavily biased in favour of the perpetrators of criminal acts. It has encouraged political correctness gone mad, encouraged the compensation culture and shackled the police from doing their job of detaining suspects and the government from deporting known terrorists. Murders and paedophiles are given new identities and are allowed to live amongst us again, without our being made aware of the danger in our midst. Therefore this government's insistence on observing the human rights of criminals and terrorists has directly compromised MY human right to live in safety and without fear or risk to my life, home, and family.


As regards me, as an individual, condoning the behaviour of the corrupt and immoral government whose jackboot we are currently under, I do not accept any responsibility for their illegal invasion of Iraq, or their occupation of Afghanistan. By the same token I do not believe you can condemn an entire nation for the actions of murderous dictators. To say that the entire German nation was complicit in the Final Solution is ridiculous.

[arista]

Originally Posted by WOMBAI

I think it depends on the crime!

Yes but once in My Castle
they are under my Rules
they have broken in and will be attacked.


In America
California they have good warning signs
it says 'Armed Response'

And I was out there for some months
so I know have the same Policy
but without the Warning. (As it is not legal here)


Life In The City.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by angus58

Judicial decisions invoking the human rights of foreign terror suspects and convicted criminals have seriously compromised national security and public safety.

Thats the main flaw in the Act and its imposition, simply the Judicial decisions taken under the Act itself. It is open to abuse like all laws, however its the people who make decisions regarding the enactment of the law itself that cause the damage, not the Act.

The decisions regarding criminals and the damages awarded to them for apparent injustices do undermine the law itself. Both in the eyes of the public but also by setting precedent, they create yardsticks that other people wanting to abuse the law can use to gain advantage. As with all laws, its down to the judiciary to ensure the act is implemented fairly both to the letter of the law but also for the common good

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Thats the main flaw in the Act and its imposition, simply the Judicial decisions taken under the Act itself. It is open to abuse like all laws, however its the people who make decisions regarding the enactment of the law itself that cause the damage, not the Act.

The decisions regarding criminals and the damages awarded to them for apparent injustices do undermine the law itself. Both in the eyes of the public but also by setting precedent, they create yardsticks that other people wanting to abuse the law can use to gain advantage. As with all laws, its down to the judiciary to ensure the act is implemented fairly both to the letter of the law but also for the common good

So long as there are greedy lawyers ready to exploit the law to line their own pockets (aka Cherie Blair!) there will continue to be nonsense claims under the Human Rights Act.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by angus58

So long as there are greedy lawyers ready to exploit the law to line their own pockets (aka Cherie Blair!) there will continue to be nonsense claims under the Human Rights Act.

Not a truer word spoken, I remember when her everloving hubby announced the Human Rights Act being brought onto the statute books, comments about making his wife's work easier, or providing more work for her abounded.

[arista]

On ITV1 Now
Tonight Docu.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by arista

On ITV1 Now
Tonight Docu.

Yes, just watched it. So you can defend yourself with "reasonable force" That's a pretty subjective phrase. Anyone steps over my doorstep without permission takes the consequences.

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by angus58

Yes, just watched it. So you can defend yourself with "reasonable force" That's a pretty subjective phrase. Anyone steps over my doorstep without permission takes the consequences.

Top tip, always be in "fear of you and your family's life", believe "they were armed" and always state you asked them to stop/leave.

When testing cases the CPS use this criteria for "reasonable force" to decide whether or not to prosecute: the minimum force necessary a reasonable person would need to use to achieve a legal aim (get the intruders to leave etc.). Any more and they will start proceedings.

And if they do leave dont chase after them. PMSL

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Shasown

Top tip, always be in "fear of you and your family's life", believe "they were armed" and always state you asked them to stop/leave.

And if they do leave dont chase after them. PMSL

Or just move to the States where its always open season

[Shasown]

Originally Posted by angus58

Or just move to the States where its always open season

PMSL. Yeah but a lot more criminals go armed over there.

[NettoSuperstar!]

Anyway...how very Christian of you angus lol...what would JeZus say?

[InOne]

'An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' could be interpreted the total opposite way, a primitive version of the golden rule even.

[NettoSuperstar!]

Originally Posted by InOne

'An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' could be interpreted the total opposite way, a primitive version of the golden rule even.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
Mahatma Gandhi,

[InOne]

Originally Posted by NettoSuperstar!

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."
Mahatma Gandhi,

I was gonna quote that, but thought it might be a bit obvious

[NettoSuperstar!]

Originally Posted by InOne

I was gonna quote that, but thought it might be a bit obvious

Ghandi the man! I love it how people profess to be good christians showin compassion and love thy neighbour etc, then advocate all sorts of human rights abuses and even killing another human being cos theyre a criminal...not very Jezus like is it?

[InOne]

Originally Posted by NettoSuperstar!

Ghandi the man! I love it how people profess to be good christians showin compassion and love thy neighbour etc, then advocate all sorts of human rights abuses and even killing another human being cos theyre a criminal...not very Jezus like is it?

Of course, people go on about the golden rule with religion yet don't read the rest. A life for a life is barbaric, I thought we'd moved on as a society, but I guess not.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by NettoSuperstar!

Anyway...how very Christian of you angus lol...what would JeZus say?

Jesus said "Do unto others as you would be done by", so burglars would be well advised to keep that in mind if they don't want to be done unto by breaking into my house.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by InOne

Of course, people go on about the golden rule with religion yet don't read the rest. A life for a life is barbaric, I thought we'd moved on as a society, but I guess not.

Are we back to the capital punishment argument? I'm talking about the right to defend myself, my family and my property from intruders who have the choice not to break into my home. If they do, then they should be prepared to take the consequences, unless you are suggesting that I should invite them in for a cup of tea and tell them to help themselves?