On 15 Mar 2012 at 4:23pm jrsussex wrote:
Did anyone watch it on BBC TV last night? Utterly depressing to learn that a British Biil of Rights will not, even it is was to be introduced, take the place of the European Convention. That stays whatever we as a nation decide to do.
On 15 Mar 2012 at 5:20pm Clifford wrote:
Here is the text of the European Convention on Human Rights for anyone who has never read them. I can't imagine anyone finding them in any way objectionable, except of course a dictator. They were, I understand, drafted by a British lawyer. I'd find a Bill of Rights equally satisfactory as I assume it would include precisely the same rights.
Check it out here »
On 15 Mar 2012 at 5:21pm Clifford wrote:
It looks as if the link doesn't work. So just google European Convention on Human Rights.
On 15 Mar 2012 at 6:49pm bloke wrote:
Better link below see also h++p://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights
Check it out here »
On 15 Mar 2012 at 7:01pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Well said, Clifford. It might be interesting for members who do find them objectionable to tell us which ones and why.
On 15 Mar 2012 at 7:27pm Angry wrote:
ACT did you see the programme and the devastating story at the start of it? There is something fundamentally wrong when the convention can be used to support the criminal and not the victim.
On 15 Mar 2012 at 8:02pm mickyboy wrote:
its not the detail of the human rights bill that is the problem, its the manner in which it is implemented, and some of the interpretations produced by the judiciary, particularly when it comes to the emotive subject of deportation of criminals and failed illegal immigrants
On 15 Mar 2012 at 9:20pm Clifford wrote:
I'm not sure what you're suggesting mickyboy - judges are there to interpret the law, that's their job. If you don't like the rule of law perhaps you'd be happier somewhere like North Korea. And I agree ACT - it always fascinates me how some people enjoy the prospect of living in a world in which there are no fundamental rights and assume it would never affect them.
On 15 Mar 2012 at 10:38pm expat two wrote:
Its going over old ground I know, but if its not the detail of the HRB that is the problem, then its not the HRB that needs abandoning.
On 15 Mar 2012 at 11:44pm IMEYOU wrote:
Article 2 ‚?? Right to life
2B is open to abuse, because if the Police are given misguided or do not understand the information given to them, or just get over excited then who carries the can ?
Check it out here »
On 16 Mar 2012 at 7:19am Paul Newman wrote:
I am surprised Clifford is so disparaging about the workers paradise we know as North Korea about 3,500,000 slaughtered ( well you gotta break a few eggs eh) .Lewes`s belligerent atheists will also be pleased at the example of their thinking in practice . Rationalist will applaud the collectivisation of agriculture which rationally starved countless units to death. Same thing happened in the Soviet Union which bloke`s idolatrously worshipped science was quick to justify. Trophim Lysenko and his Soviet genetics would is worth a google session Bloke, when you next feel like pretending science is on some Parnassian elevation above the fray.
On the appalling human rights act the point is it is inflicted on us . It is not optional to sign up to the HRC if you wish to be in the EU so if you want to get out of the rule of Strasbourg Euro Lawyers over our elected representatives then you have to get out of the EU . At heart what we have is the threat of Franco German trade embargo keeping us in line. This is the EU at work and lets not fail to recognise the Pan European Empire at work because of its various faces
On 16 Mar 2012 at 7:20am Paul Newman wrote:
That British lawyers drew it up is a big so what !Lawyers are scum. It was envisaged by Chruchill as a bulwark against the Soviet Union ( for whom Michael Foot was spying and much of the British left openly sympathised with ) .It was, to him a means of appealing to the people of sovereign dictatorships and strengthening the region abutting the iron curtain
Churchill would have been dismayed and appalled at the use of this act to usurp Parliament‚??s role and so suspend moral judgment of groups of people that we are forced to let prisoners vote ,and terrorists walk free .
So what do we see , unintended consequences coo lumme there s a thing eh , what you mean a few dim witted and unnecessary platitudes about family life and such might be mis -used by lawyers and power greedy slugs ? Amazing .
On 16 Mar 2012 at 7:21am Paul Newman wrote:
Explain to me again why I should consult the views of murders and paedophiles about he manner in which I live Clifford et al . In fact explain why John Hirst a man who put an axe through his land ladies head is able to humiliate the decent people of this country who do now want this alien imposition
This is Hirst celebrating ‚?¶;.makes you feel proud to be European ‚?¶. And it is worth watching not only to see the consequences of this foul diktat but also because he rather nicely clarifies that it will not be matter of only a few nice prisoners , the law requires the lot to tell us what to do Murders Rapists , paedophiles terrorists illegal immigrants ‚?¶ the only people whose rights matter to Liberals.
Check it out here »
On 16 Mar 2012 at 9:38am Luddite wrote:
"Lawyers are scum". Your argument is impeccable Mr Newman. I don't think I need to read the rest of your drivel.
On 16 Mar 2012 at 10:47am Clifford wrote:
Poor old Newman, there you go again.
On 16 Mar 2012 at 11:37am Merlin Milner wrote:
Mr Newman stop exaggerating. Your posts read like you are after a job at the Daily Mail....or worse. I believe that you work in insurance, I bet some people have strong views about the insurance business. Lawyers, just like insurers, work for a business and have a duty to their customers / clients and shareholders. It is not the European Convention on Human Rights that is at fault but perhaps the "business" of law. I think that there has been a profound change in the legal "business" just like there has been a change in the insurance business. As citizens we are often poorly served by both. These two businesses need to be reviewed and modernised.
On 16 Mar 2012 at 4:25pm Tired legs wrote:
Referring to North Korea resident driveller Paul Newman said:
"Lewes`s belligerent atheists will also be pleased at the example of their thinking in practice"
Newman, you are a complete waste of a body.
On 16 Mar 2012 at 5:15pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Come on, Paul, tell us which of the rights you so object to? Or is it the fact that it is the same all over Europe and it offends your Little Englander mentaility?
Repealing a law because you don't like some of the decisions made by those interpreting it really is baby and bathwater stuff.
On 16 Mar 2012 at 6:13pm Mercian wrote:
Are you a wind-up merchant, Paul?
If not, you're really getting rather shrill.
On 17 Mar 2012 at 7:50am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Paul always shuts up when he can't find an appropriate answer on the Daily Mail or Consevative Party websites. He's full of soundbites and fury, signifying nothing.
On 17 Mar 2012 at 9:38am Paul Newman wrote:
Ha ha it is not rights in the abstract ACT but they do not operate in the abstract they are employed in the real world where they do immense damage . Neither is it the fault of Judges who , as far a I am aware have correctly interpreted what has been laid down . It is simply a bad bad law
and since you goad me this is why
1 Conceptually - An absolute right is not a moral possibility. Never mind family life, it is perfectly simple to imagine a time when torture would be justified and unpleasant though it may be ,it would be immoral to sacrifice innocents for the comfort of the guilty There may be other arguments for the prohibition of torture but not moral ones at that moment. The right to family life for a man who has deprived others of theirs is easier to understand as a wrong ,but at bottom this is not an absolute universe and this conceptual flaw leads to others .
2 Cultural Conquest - The worlds most successful and just system is our own, and it has been the model for others who might compete for that claim. Its distinctive features recognise the contingent nature of justice . The ‚??dialectic‚?Ě structure of defence ands prosecution judged by ordinary people, and Common Law .It contains in it the constant possibility of adjustment , modernisation as principles are tested against circumstances and it grows out of a nations distinctive experience . It is , the ritual enactment of the common accord between Englishmen and a part of us that from the start established an unusually law abiding and law respecting nation. All of this is attacked by a super national statute in the Napoleonic or Fascist top down ,style We do of course have stature Law as well but that has never assaulted the knotted cord assumptions between us ,of justice it has been technical and ‚??tidying‚??, dealing with consumer rights and so forth
Every time a clear injustice is done another tear appears in that fabric
3 Legitimacy - As I have explained ( see link) signing up to the HRA is not optional we can only derogate within the EU structure . It is inflicted on us by multiple treaty tying us into Euro platitudes used as part of the campaign to homogenise Nations . This is which is required for European integration to the true goal of its disparate institutions . It has not legitimacy either in democratic or any other way . It also insults the British people and Parliament whose country Is no longer their own .
Perhaps you think that giving rapists and paedophiles the vote is just an unfortunate by product of a fundamentally sound idea , but the rights , soi disant , we were supposedly given by European court are the ones we enjoyed anyway as free Englishmen and women .My rights very much exceed the silly cracker mottos we have spent billions on tinkering with ‚?¶and yes yet more waste
Check it out here »
On 17 Mar 2012 at 2:51pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
The "dialectic structure of defence and prosecution" is not really one which enables individuals to seek redress for unjust treatment though, Paul. You can't just write to the council and say "I think it's unfair to split up my mum and dad into different care homes, please don't do it". In the absence of statutory rights, they'll laugh in your face knowing that your only redress would be by judicial review which is way out of most people's reach.
Otoh, a letter pointing out that such a step would breach their rights under article 8 has succeeded on many an occasion.
Common law is an irrelevance in this matter and if it were any good common law would not be overturned so frequently. Precedents can often conflict, and it is individual judges who decide which one carries the most compelling argument. It can be a fantastic thing (I doubt if anyone could fail to be moved by the compassion, clarity and care in the judgment on the Maltese conjoined twins case of a few years ago), but there are plenty of Justice Cocklecarrot types around still.
Criminals are punished by the loss of their liberty, not of their voting rights. Whether their crime is a sex offence or robbing banks makes no difference ethically or in any other way.
On 17 Mar 2012 at 8:01pm Mercian wrote:
I also find it hard to understand how PN can have such enormous respect for the legal system but such utter contempt for lawyers. Judges were all lawyers once.
On 18 Mar 2012 at 11:49am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Paul only respects the legal system when it's enforcing the laws he agrees with. Sort of "pick and mix" respect.
On 18 Mar 2012 at 2:20pm Paul Newman wrote:
That is precisely your role ACT. I take it that the use of the foreign diktat enabled you to shove your own needs above others at some point, well goody for you. Hardly a basis either for law or the distribution of scarce resources though.
I do not blame judges you do. I blame the law which, as far as I can see, the judges have interpreted it correctly. Its just a hideously bad law without legitimacy and if one is not allowed to object without being accused of anarchism then we shall all have to be a lot quieter in the future.
On 18 Mar 2012 at 4:37pm Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
Not at all, Paul, I have never had any need of it, but I forgive you your mean-minded assumption.
It stopped my friend's elderly parents being split up during their final years though, and has helped many of the clients I support.It really has made a huge difference to people when it comes to getting appropriate housing and social care.
But I must ask again, which are the rights safeguarded under the HRA that you find so objectionable?
On 18 Mar 2012 at 8:16pm jrsussex wrote:
Just got back from a weekend in Southend, walked the worlds longest pleasure pier, which is why I have not read the posts until now. I think I may have given the wrong impression in my initial post, I support the EU convention/Bill of Rights. It is, as has been said, the interpretation in some of the cases that appal me. How can a man with a long standing criminal record in place go on to kill a child, from which he ran away, and yet remain in UK simply because he has a child here. There are a number of other similar cases, which you will know of, and it is that that I find disquietening. Protection of human rights must be paramount, and the UK has led the way in doing so for many years, but occasionally we have to accept that a person has lost the protection to those rights by the actions they chose to take.
On 18 Mar 2012 at 10:04pm Paul Newman wrote:
For faint praise 'I forgive you your mean-minded assumption.' ranks with
'Mussolni was my least disliked Axis leader' . What makes you think that I would not applaud anyone using any weapon to hand to look after their own. I would, that is not the point here. As I have sought to argue, your question ,in my view ,is irrelevant.
I agree with your sentiments JRS I do not agree that the HRA can ever deliver what you want .
On 19 Mar 2012 at 10:37am jrsussex wrote:
Paul - There will always be the exception to the rule in all walks of llfe and they should be dealt with appropriately. There are cases, such as the example I gave, where the judiciary have to take a different view and take account of what the majority believe. It is by not doing so they discredit the very concept of human rights, my opinion of course.