Inspired by the 'Life of Brian' what have the Romans ever done for us question, I seriously ask the same question of the human rights act.

I know their must be some good points and they will hopefully get listed here but with all the problems we get put on us with immigration (or perceivable problems, hence the question as I have laid it out) ect, does it actually benefit the everyday Brit to be signed up to such a charter or would we be better off with our hands not being tied behind our backs with it ?

So here it is 'What has the human rights act ever done for us' ?

It's filled our country with all the undesireables that Asia and Africa can throw at us under the cover of being 'assylum seekers'. Where can I seek assylum, I am white, British and heterosexual ?????
Guess I've blown it on 3 counts then.............

It has given me the right to stand in the middle of our street and shout, "Down with freedom!", but unless I become a criminal, immigrant, dissenter or Bill Oddie, then it has done nothing for me. Hope this helps.

Not really, I am expecting some good points at some stage, the odd aqueduct or two :D

I hope to be able to form a list as in the film, but I am not going to hold my breath.

I seriously ask the same question of the human rights act.
The EU human rights act, or the UN's 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights'?

Edit. Ah, the human rights act is British. The EU gave us their Convention on Human Rights. Silly me.

It protects the rights of criminals.

It does very little for your average man in the street because you need massive amounts of money to pursue a human rights case. It's OK for those on benefits who have unlimited legal coverage but those who work have bugger all and have to stump up their own cash.

It's a dolescum's charter and although there are certain aspect of the act which I subscribe to, I disagree with the fact that it gives the shiftless carte blanche to sue for percieved infringements at the cost of the taxpayer.

The EU human rights act, or the UN's 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights'?

Is this a European or an African swallow question ? :hihi:

It protects the rights of criminals.

It does very little for your average man in the street because you need massive amounts of money to pursue a human rights case. It's OK for those on benefits who have unlimited legal coverage but those who work have bugger all and have to stump up their own cash.

It's a dolescum's charter and although there are certain aspect of the act which I subscribe to, I disagree with the fact that it gives the shiftless carte blanche to sue for percieved infringements at the cost of the taxpayer.Plus, the cretins who claim human rights are usually the last to grant them to their victims. Human rights are a weak government's excuse for failure.

It's filled our country with all the undesireables that Asia and Africa can throw at us under the cover of being 'assylum seekers'.
In Article 10 we have 'The right to freedom of expression'. Anyone can come along and spout rubbish freely.

Human rights are a weak government's excuse for failure.
Any examples of this?

It protects the rights of criminals.

It does very little for your average man in the street because you need massive amounts of money to pursue a human rights case. It's OK for those on benefits who have unlimited legal coverage but those who work have bugger all and have to stump up their own cash.

It's a dolescum's charter and although there are certain aspect of the act which I subscribe to, I disagree with the fact that it gives the shiftless carte blanche to sue for percieved infringements at the cost of the taxpayer.

Spot on mate, unless you are 'skint' you cant afford to defend yourself against all the crap. Dont seem fair somehow..............

It's further enriched a lot of lawyers at taxpayers expense, so I guess if lawyers spend a lot of money with you than that's a good thing? Wig and gown manufacturers must be doing nicely out of it.

In Article 10 we have 'The right to freedom of expression'. Anyone can come along and spout rubbish freely.

And you take full advantage of it !!!!!:rolleyes:

here we go again the right whinging about dole skum and immigrants

I am white, British and heterosexual ?????
Article 12: The right to marry and found a family. :)

Any examples of this? The British government.

The British government.
Protocol 1, Article 2: The right to education.

Which British government? Any? The last one? The one before?

Inspired by the 'Life of Brian' what have the Romans ever done for us question, I seriously ask the same question of the human rights act.

I know their must be some good points and they will hopefully get listed here but with all the problems we get put on us with immigration (or perceivable problems, hence the question as I have laid it out) ect, does it actually benefit the everyday Brit to be signed up to such a charter or would we be better off with our hands not being tied behind our backs with it ?

So here it is 'What has the human rights act ever done for us' ?

Tell me h2m, would you prefer that any or all of the following protections didn't apply to you or a member of your family?

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

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Yourrightsandresponsibilities/DG_4002951

Tell me h2m, would you prefer that any or all of the following protections didn't apply to you or a member of your family?

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

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Yourrightsandresponsibilities/DG_4002951

indeed, if you look at it from another angle, what do you think would change if we threw it away?
yes we'd get rid of a lot of the scum" problems, but would life actually change? would people in power slowly start to erode our freedoms?

its all right saying oh thats cobblers, but we dont actually know how such things are actually entrenched in our daily lives and what would happen if they were got rid of

here we go again the right whinging about dole skum and immigrants

And why shouldn't we Mel? Surely we paid for your 20 odd years on the dole, don't we get a right to have a whinge?

and why shouldn't we mel? Surely we paid for your 20 odd years on the dole, don't we get a right to have a whing?

18 :p
............

It's done nothing for me. Just because I am White and hetro, have a decent job and somewhere to live. Can't stand all this whinging from these lefty do-gooders. Next thing, they will be wanting everyone to have the same rights as me. Won't work will it? Someone has to grab hold of the dirty end of the stick and it won't be me cos I pay my taxes and vote Tory.

Any one like to answer the question instead of drawing up their own ?

Ok so we have Lawyers and judges benefit, But apart from the benefit to the lawyers and judges 'what has the human rights act ever done for us' ?

Don't ask. They are watching and Wilberforce is dead.


It has given me the right to stand in the middle of our street and shout, "Down with freedom!", .

Don't threaten to "blow up freedom" though.

But, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a concept worth fighting for and preserving in a really ironic way. It's certainly not something to be treated with contempt and it should always be remembered that with rights come responsibilities.

Lawyers that abuse it on the other hand may be strung up by their loins from the rafters of Robin Hood Airport and anyone else who is stupid enough not to understand what human rights are should join them.

Protocol 1, Article 2: The right to education.

Which British government? Any? The last one? The one before?The one that signed up to the EU human rights act. The one that said "we'll agree to anything for a quiet life because we're gutless."

18 :p
............

OK, 18 ... So we shouldn't object to that? Like you weren't able bodied and had the facility to work but just chose not to - That's a sidebar.

What irritates me is that the HRA only gives law enforcement officials recourse through three articles of the act. It gives your typical E carte blanche to milk the system and the system carte blanche to milk the tax payer.

Who bought in the HRA? Tony Blair. And what does his wife do? Give you three guesses .... If it gets too tricky for you just hit this link: http://www.cherieblair.org/

Lawyers that abuse it on the other hand may be strung up by their loins from the rafters of Robin Hood Airport and anyone else who is stupid enough not to understand what human rights are should join them.Isn't that the problem ? It would be against their 'Humanoid rights' :D

Don't ask. They are watching and Wilberforce is dead.




Don't threaten to "blow up freedom" though.

But, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a concept worth fighting for and preserving in a really ironic way. It's certainly not something to be treated with contempt and it should always be remembered that with rights come responsibilities. Lawyers that abuse it on the other hand may be strung up by their loins from the rafters of Robin Hood Airport and anyone else who is stupid enough not to understand what human rights are should join them.

There's the tripping point. Those who take no responsibility for their actions usually spout their human rights.

Who bought in the HRA? Tony Blair.
Essentially, yes, but it is a little more complex.

Source (http://www.justice.org.uk/images/pdfs/HRAINT.PDF)
What rights does the Act include?

The rights that are brought into effect by the Human Rights Act are the rights laid down in an
international treaty, the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention), which
was signed by the UK in 1951. That treaty permits individuals who believe that their human
rights have been violated to bring a case before an international court in Strasbourg, the
European Court of Human Rights. This court is part of an international organisation, the
Council of Europe, which is a distinct organisation, separate from the European Union.

In many respects, the rights introduced by the Human Rights Act are not new. They have
been binding on the UK government since 1951. However, what is new is the fact that
people can now hold public authorities directly accountable in the UK itself.

Ok, But apart from the work for lawyers and judges, and the right to benefits for all 'what has the human rights act ever done for us' ?

Probably none of it, so why are you moaning about the human rights act?
Its a reasonable question, if it offers little benefit to us but causes more problems than its worth then exactly why do we have it ?

If you can answer the original question at any point...

Ok, But apart from the work for lawyers and judges, and the right to benefits for all 'what has the human rights act ever done for us' ?

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

Essentially, yes, but it is a little more complex.

Source (http://www.justice.org.uk/images/pdfs/HRAINT.PDF)
[INDENT]What rights does the Act include?

But before that Godless <REMOVED> we never had half the problems we have now. I wouldn't trust that morally flexible turd with a whelk stall never mind a country.

Essentially, yes, but it is a little more complex.

Source (http://www.justice.org.uk/images/pdfs/HRAINT.PDF)
What rights does the Act include?

The rights that are brought into effect by the Human Rights Act are the rights laid down in an
international treaty, the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention), which
was signed by the UK in 1951. That treaty permits individuals who believe that their human
rights have been violated to bring a case before an international court in Strasbourg, the
European Court of Human Rights. This court is part of an international organisation, the
Council of Europe, which is a distinct organisation, separate from the European Union.

In many respects, the rights introduced by the Human Rights Act are not new. They have
been binding on the UK government since 1951. However, what is new is the fact that
people can now hold public authorities directly accountable in the UK itself.

That is rather a major problem with the act. All these "rights" existed previously and cases could be brought in Strasbourg if a percieved violation had occured. Now that the act is in force these percieved violations can be brought through the british courts...then if the outcome is not the desired one for the appelant they can then be taken to ....Strasbourg, same as before. No further access to justice, just a huge increase in the cost of frivolous cases often pursed by those whose case is funded by legal aid (ie your and mine taxes).

M'learned friends cash registers have never been so full.

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 penaltyThat's the point, it was illegal to kill me before the human rights act. Im pretty sure I could marry.
Our law says I have a right to a fair trial or what's that woman doing with the scales over that court in London.
In fact Im sure I had all those rights without this being introduced so 'what has it done for us' ?

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

As a democracy, didn't we have all this before we got lumbered with the Human Rights Act.

Ok, But apart from the work for lawyers and judges, and the right to benefits for all 'what has the human rights act ever done for us' ?

Isnt it obvious? Have a look at what the rights are..if we didnt have them forums of this nature could be censured by the government just because they didnt like the content..for a vision of a world where human rights are trivialised have a look at China, or Zimbabwe or Saudi Arabia.

Personally I'm prepared to accept a few greedy lawyers and bogus claimants so the high principles of the act remain in place to protect me and my family should we ever at sometime in the future require it.

It's ok saying 'it could never happen here' but the rights granted to us through law can easily be abused when citizens place no value on them.

As a democracy, didn't we have all this before we got lumbered with the Human Rights Act.
If we already had it, then isn't it worth writing in law?

As a democracy, didn't we have all this before we got lumbered with the Human Rights Act.

I think chris sleeps made this point really well, the convention on human rights isnt a new invention, the treaty was signed in 1951.

Isnt it obvious? Have a look at what the rights are..if we didnt have them forums of this nature could be censured by the government just because they didnt like the content..for a vision of a world where human rights are trivialised have a look at China, or Zimbabwe or Saudi Arabia.

Personally I'm prepared to accept a few greedy lawyers and bogus claimants so the high principles of the act remain in place to protect me and my family should we ever at sometime in the future require it.

It's ok saying 'it could never happen here' but the rights granted to us through law can easily be abused when citizens place no value on them.
You don't know that.
How can you know that I have more freedom to say what I want on forums because of this act ?
In China and those other places they probably do need a human rights act but we pretty much had our freedoms without it and its not really a big enough stick to beat other countries with because they do what they want anyhow. All it does is give the civilians of the world a right to the same freedoms we have in principle and if not they can move here to have them.
Since when has China cared about the human rights act ?

The question still stands 'what has it done for us' ?

I think chris sleeps made this point really well, the convention on human rights isnt a new invention, the treaty was signed in 1951.

But then why do we have a whole landslide of cases bought by people using legal aid in recent years?

It's the funding of the wealthy using publicly gained finance.

The question still stands 'what has it done for us' ?

Because it gives you rights that you did not have otherwise.

i wonder when workfare comes in the "offenders" will be able to claim that their human rights are being infringed under the act of (freedom from slavery and forced labour):hihi:

If we already had it, then isn't it worth writing in law?It is,its called 'Law' , if its law here then its ours.

This act is just a set of principles to try and shame other countries into trying to act like us. Isn't that up to their own Governments and peoples to demand fair and equal rights for themselves ?

This human rights lot is just a cast off from colonialism, where once we could defeat a nation into adopting our principles now we try and shame them into it. The only problem is anyone can look at how we were before it as a nation, and how we are now, and think 'you know what, its not really done a great deal for them has it' ?

Why is it that every person who is burgled does not press for prosecution against the accused under "the right to respect for private and family life"?

Because they don't get free legal coverage. It's as much to do with the legal aid system as it is the HRA. If citizens got legal aid then I imagine they'd pound the miscreants into the ground with HRA legislature, as it is they don't because as hard working tax payers they just can't afford it.

Because it gives you rights that you did not have otherwise.
I had those rights just not worded round like that. They are just our laws worded universally to sell it to all nations.

What rights did I not have before it ? 'What has it done for us' ?

But then why do we have a whole landslide of cases bought by people using legal aid in recent years?

Human rights lawyers are not the invention of a post 1997 government SV, they've always been around and its not a particularly lucrative area of the law to be involved in. The banking, finance, personal injury and corporate solicitors and barristers make the HR lot look like paupers, so I doubt many set out to do it for the money.

I guess like most things cases are more widely reported than they were previously and obviously it makes up good column inches for 24 hour news editors hungry for stories.

Why is it that every person who is burgled does not press for prosecution against the accused under "the right to respect for private and family life"?

Because they don't get free legal coverage. It's as much to do with the legal aid system as it is the HRA. If citizens got legal aid then I imagine they'd pound the miscreants into the ground with HRA legislature, as it is they don't because as hard working tax payers they just can't afford it.

Well what would be the objective in pursuing a burglar in that way? He has no money to compensate you and the state has punished him on your behalf through the criminal justice system.

Human rights lawyers are not the invention of a post 1997 government SV, they've always been around and its not a particularly lucrative area of the law to be involved in. The banking, finance, personal injury and corporate solicitors and barristers make the HR lot look like paupers, so I doubt many set out to do it for the money.

I guess like most things cases are more widely reported than they were previously and obviously it makes up good column inches for 24 hour news editors hungry for stories.

Isn't Mrs Blair a Human Rights lawyer ?

I had those rights just not worded round like that. They are just our laws worded universally to sell it to all nations.

What rights did I not have before it ? 'What has it done for us' ?

But you didn't have those rights at all. (Summarising 'all' here BTW)

There is a world of difference between the rights that you are entitled to and the crimes that people may commit against you. Rights and crimes are not opposite ends of the same stick.

I know it might seem a semantic point but do you agree with me that they are actually very different things?

Human rights lawyers are not the invention of a post 1997 government SV, they've always been around and its not a particularly lucrative area of the law to be involved in. The banking, finance, personal injury and corporate solicitors and barristers make the HR lot look like paupers, so I doubt many set out to do it for the money.

I guess like most things cases are more widely reported than they were previously and obviously it makes up good column inches for 24 hour news editors hungry for stories.

Matrix Chambers made a fortune out of the wide mouthed frogs husbands legislation.

Lets not pretend the parasites like Cherie Booth jumped on this legislation because they wanted to "make a difference" - it was cold hard greed, because it allowed multiple appeals and thus a long lucrative court process.

So we have so far, the work for lawyers and judges, benefits, criminals rights.

Human rights lawyers are not the invention of a post 1997 government SV, they've always been around and its not a particularly lucrative area of the law to be involved in. The banking, finance, personal injury and corporate solicitors and barristers make the HR lot look like paupers, so I doubt many set out to do it for the money.

I guess like most things cases are more widely reported than they were previously and obviously it makes up good column inches for 24 hour news editors hungry for stories.

BF, I've got the utmost respect for you but I'm of the firm opinion that those Godless sons of motherless whores are all about the green. I've personal exerience of these wretched bottom feeders and I can assure you that they're beyond reprehensible in their dealings.

Well what would be the objective in pursuing a burglar in that way? He has no money to compensate you and the state has punished him on your behalf through the criminal justice system.

But any pursuant through HRA gets fiscal compensation? Why should the householder not get compo for the miscreant defiling their rights?

You seem to be muddling the concepts. As explained above, rights are not about crimes.

Just like if you have an egg with your toast it isn't ever going to be a tomato.

Matrix Chambers made a fortune out of the wide mouthed frogs husbands legislation.

Lets not pretend the parasites like Cherie Booth jumped on this legislation because they wanted to "make a difference" - it was cold hard greed, because it allowed multiple appeals and thus a long lucrative court process.

I'm not defending Matrix Chambers, Cherie Booth or Tony Blair, so let's try not to obscure the bigger picture with our own feelings towards these people. The point I was making is that HR law isn't something barristers go into for the money, even though some of them earn a very good living out of it, the chambers at 3 Verulam Buildings do mainly finance work and their senior barristers might earn more than all the Matrix set put together.

But you didn't have those rights at all. (Summarising 'all' here BTW)

There is a world of difference between the rights that you are entitled to and the crimes that people may commit against you. Rights and crimes are not opposite ends of the same stick.

I know it might seem a semantic point but do you agree with me that they are actually very different things?Erm no, Im confused. Are you saying that acts that are illegal are not so because they are in place to protect the citizens ?

Does it not mean that being illegal to murder equates to the victim of such a potential murder victim not having the right to live ? Because this just sounds like an act to state the obvious.

Its the same as every one being allowed, nay encouraged, to marry and then saying its my right to marriage and not only that in that marriage I am now allowed the right to a family within it ?

Like I said it just sounds like an explanation of the laws and rules that we live by in order to sell them to everyone else. Which one of the acts could I not have benefited from before, don't we have some sort of constitution giving me the right to these things anyhow ?

I'm not defending Matrix Chambers, Cherie Booth or Tony Blair, so let's try not to obscure the bigger picture with our own feelings towards these people. The point I was making is that HR law isn't something barristers go into for the money, even though some of them earn a very good living out of it, the chambers at 3 Verulam Buildings do mainly finance work and their senior barristers might earn more than all the Matrix set put together.

You mean; it's a <REMOVED> job but someones got to it......and settle for an unspectacular six figure sum as compensation.

don't we have some sort of constitution giving me the right to these things anyhow ?
No. Our constitution is to control monarchy. It says very little about the common man.

No. Our constitution is to control monarchy. It says very little about the common man.
I mean this sort of thing

In the United Kingdom, the Bill of Rights is further accompanied by the Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus Act 1679 and Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 as some of the basic documents of the uncodified British constitution. A separate but similar document, the Claim of Right Act, applies in Scotland. The English Bill of Rights 1689 inspired in large part the United States Bill of Rights

Im grasping at straws but I bet that the same stuff in the human rights act is in this lot

Charter of Liberties
Habeas Corpus Act 1679
English Civil War
Fundamental Laws of England
Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689
Rights of Englishmen
Penal Law
Penal Laws

You mean; it's a <REMOVED> job but someones got to it......and settle for an unspectacular six figure sum as compensation.
Not at all, I'm saying if they were solely motivated by money they'd pick another area of law to practice in-there are lots of human rights lawyers who make nothing like a six figure salary.

Ps: this is all irrelevant anyway since the law is there to protect people, if my or your human rights were abused we'd expect a qualified lawyer to defend our position, we'd have no chance doing it on our own.

I mean this sort of thing

In the United Kingdom, the Bill of Rights is further accompanied by the Magna Carta [...] The English Bill of Rights 1689 inspired in large part the United States Bill of Rights
Wiki: Bill of Rights - 1689 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689)

It is essentially a control of monarchy. It gives very little away in the grand scheme of things.

Human rights here is not a new concept to us at all.

"Freeborn" is a term associated with political agitator John Lilburne (1614–1657), a member of the Levellers, a 17th-century English political party. As a word, "freeborn" means to be born free, rather than to be born in slavery or bondage or vassalage. Lilburne argued for basic human rights that he termed "freeborn rights", which he defined as being rights that every human being is born with, as opposed to rights bestowed by government or by human law. John Lilburne's concept of freeborn rights may have influenced the concept of unalienable rights mentioned in the United States Declaration of Independence.

So did we not have such a thing shape our law way back when and in effect give us the 'human rights' before this new lot were drawn up to beat other nations with ?

If so what has the human rights...

Im grasping at straws but I bet that the same stuff in the human rights act is in this lot
We didn't have universal suffrage until 1928. The chartist movement was crushed without a right to assembly. The French gave the world their 'Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen' in 1789, and it's over 200 years later and we still haven't got all the things they idealised back then.

So did we not have such a thing shape our law way back when and in effect give us the 'human rights' before this new lot were drawn up to beat other nations with ?
You are aware Cromwell locked the Levellers up and set his troops on them?

I'm not defending Matrix Chambers, Cherie Booth or Tony Blair, so let's try not to obscure the bigger picture with our own feelings towards these people. The point I was making is that HR law isn't something barristers go into for the money, even though some of them earn a very good living out of it, the chambers at 3 Verulam Buildings do mainly finance work and their senior barristers might earn more than all the Matrix set put together.

There are varying levels of ability. A Barrister paid by a commerical firm (rather than your and my taxes) has to be rather good. A Barrister paid by legal aid putting endless "my clients human rights were infringed because his wide screen telly got knocked over during the raid" do not need any such skill, merely repetition, carried through the appeal process.

If you had your liberty at stake would you let Booth defend you? I certainly would not. But if it's a taxpayer funded no-lose give it a go job then why not?

You are aware Cromwell locked the Levellers up and set his troops on them?
I am saying that before this HR lot we here had it sorted and more or less in law and principle had protection of our citizenship without having to go on a moral quest and to prove commitment tied ourselves up in knots with it all.

Im still lost has to what we were missing out on before we had it, hence the question.

There's a lot of stupid ignorance is this thread or are they just poor attempts at trolling?

It's filled our country with all the undesireables that Asia and Africa can throw at us under the cover of being 'assylum seekers'. Where can I seek assylum, I am white, British and heterosexual ?????
Guess I've blown it on 3 counts then.............

There's a lot of stupid ignorance is this thread or are they just poor attempts at trolling?

Bits of both I expect......

There are varying levels of ability. A Barrister paid by a commerical firm (rather than your and my taxes) has to be rather good. I've no particular sympathy for any of them, but you seem to be arriving at the conclusion that a commercial lawyer will be 'better' than an HR one which seems to suggest the brightest students are drawn to the more lucrative areas of practice, which may not be the case.

If you had your liberty at stake would you let Booth defend you? I certainly would not. But if it's a taxpayer funded no-lose give it a go job then why not? Why wouldn't you let her defend you? Do you have little/no confidence in her ability?

Human rights here is not a new concept to us at all.



So did we not have such a thing shape our law way back when and in effect give us the 'human rights' before this new lot were drawn up to beat other nations with ?

If so what has the human rights...
ive mentioned freeborn john before , A REAL ENGLISH MAN, we should have him as out patron saint instead of saint george, somebody whos done something to make our lives better, putting his own in jeopardy in the process

It appears to me that many individuals who don't readily apply the act to others, soon call for it's protection if things go against them. However freedom is a very strange thing, in that also applies to folk that don't appear to deserve it. :confused:

I am saying that before this HR lot we here had it sorted and more or less in law and principle had protection of our citizenship without having to go on a moral quest
No, we didn't. Unless you can somehow back that freaktastic assertion up.

And what on earth do you mean by "moral quest"?

Tell me h2m, would you prefer that any or all of the following protections didn't apply to you or a member of your family?

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

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Yourrightsandresponsibilities/DG_4002951

watch "taking liberties"
too many of these have already gone

Is the intention of this thread merely to disparage the Human Rights Act, its proponents and legal practitioners who undertake what is mostly pro bono work? Or is it that the thread starter is too idle to try a little research? Two minutes with Google and s/he could have gone to bed tonight secure in the knowledge that the HRA is there to protect them and not specifically for criminals and their lawyers.

I'd assumed that the internet would make people idle in that they would use its resources for research rather than the more intellectual process of reading source material but this thread takes even that idleness to a new height. :rolleyes:

Is the intention of this thread merely to disparage the Human Rights Act, its proponents and legal practitioners who undertake what is mostly pro bono work? Or is it that the thread starter is too idle to try a little research? Two minutes with Google and s/he could have gone to bed tonight secure in the knowledge that the HRA is there to protect them and not specifically for criminals and their lawyers.

I'd assumed that the internet would make people idle in that they would use its resources for research rather than the more intellectual process of reading source material but this thread takes even that idleness to a new height. :rolleyes:
its the usual right wing thinking, the human rights act isnt needed as its purely a tool used by terrorists and criminals.
when in fact really those are the only stories that are deemed news worthy by the media, thats why it looks like those are the only reason for having it

its the usual right wing thinking
No it's not.

Authoritarian thinking may be the term we're fumbling for here.

No, we didn't. Unless you can somehow back that freaktastic assertion up.

And what on earth do you mean by "moral quest"?Im asking the question what has it done for us, give me some examples of how we have benefited and then Ill be able to tell you what we did not have the privilege of having before it.

And by moral quest I mean Blair and others going out into the world with something akin to the reformation, where he and other world leaders who believed in globalisation needed some set of standards in place for all so that in principle everyone was equal when we all know it does not work lie that. No one can tell a Government how to treat its people armed only with a set of principles. Its a rather weedy stick to wield at someone like China who will just do what ever regardless because they know we have no real power to enforce anything over them and in fact as globalisation is just about money and a lot of people earn a lot of money out of how China treats its labour force, they are never likely going to change. All the human rights act is for is to give us the moral high ground so we can sleep at night knowing that although kids are sowing our trainers we have at least given their government a list of principles in which their citizens should be entitled to.

The only thing that happens is we have to abide by these rules to show example, and everyone else who we don't have the balls to stop trading with or go to war with can just carry on ignoring those rules while we end screwed up as a society as a result. We must let prisoners vote while others rig elections or deny their honest law abiding citizens the right to. We have to give people refuge while others mistreat their peoples and force them to leave to seek shelter in countries like ours. Were we ok before it ? I think yes, until we took it upon ourselves to try lead the world again. Because we can't go out now making colonies and taking over nations and resources the people in power and money had an idea that would let us dictate and trade conscience free to secure and amass further wealth, why cant we just let people get on with their own destinies, who are we ?

Back to the question, for us, the average Brit, what has it done for us ?

No it's not.

yes it is, EVERY right winger on here that follow the same pattern, have a problem with the human rights act deeming it to only help terrorists, immigrants and criminals
ive seen plenty of em harping on about getting rid of it for years on here

free speech, fair trials, privacy and the prohibition of torture

Which of these did the British citizen lack before the act ?

yes it is, here

No it's not.

Im asking the question what has it done for us, give me some examples of how we have benefited...
Back to the question, for us, the average Brit, what has it done for us ?
You seem to be in some kind of argument with yourself here.

Your research has shown you that Human Rights as we popularly understand them have had their roots watered with blood. The progress of these rights has been advanced by these sacrifices. Human Rights were not universal, nor are they yet. These rights have been in a continuous process of debate, codification, and legislation which you seem to regard as a Good Thing™. And I'd agree with you.

Yet, when these rights are once again, codified, and more of them are made enforceable in law, and more people are governed by those laws, they are an insult to every conceivable Right Thinking Person™.

Which is it?

Plus, the cretins who claim human rights are usually the last to grant them to their victims. Human rights are a weak government's excuse for failure.

+1

It's further enriched a lot of lawyers at taxpayers expense

+1

Who bought in the HRA? Tony Blair. And what does his wife do? Give you three guesses ....

+1

So we've all decided the main beneficiaries of the HRA are scum criminals and scum lawyers.

Can we have a poll please?

x

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


Didn't we have all of these before Tony Bliar came to power? I mean, Thatcher was bad but...

x

You'd be surprised what Human Rights have done for you. I bet any money, if those rights were taken away, the very same people who don't think they apply to them, would be the first to whinge.

You'd be surprised what Human Rights have done for you. I bet any money, if those rights were taken away, the very same people who don't think they apply to them, would be the first to whinge.
indeed

JUST because we constantly hear bad staories about the abuses makes it instantly bad.
what we NEVER hear about is what would happen if we DIDNT have it in place. would the governments and other agencies start eroding things fastert han they already do?

Tell me h2m, would you prefer that any or all of the following protections didn't apply to you or a member of your family?

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

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Yourrightsandresponsibilities/DG_4002951

Out of interest how many of those rights are not enshrined in other Uk legislation though?

I happen to agree that we are better with it than without, but I can partially understand why people have grabbed hold of this act and see it as a criminal's bill of rights.

Didn't we have all of these before Tony Bliar came to power?

In theory, but not always in practice.

You seem to be in some kind of argument with yourself here.

Your research has shown you that Human Rights as we popularly understand them have had their roots watered with blood. The progress of these rights has been advanced by these sacrifices. Human Rights were not universal, nor are they yet. These rights have been in a continuous process of debate, codification, and legislation which you seem to regard as a Good Thing™. And I'd agree with you.

Yet, when these rights are once again, codified, and more of them are made enforceable in law, and more people are governed by those laws, they are an insult to every conceivable Right Thinking Person™.

Which is it?
You mean watered in the blood of people of this nation ?
The struggle has been fought and pretty much won here to have those rights in our law before this, All this act does is have us spill more of our blood trying to push on our values to everyone else, as well as pass on these rights to anyone not comfortable where they are where this charter is not being implemented and in effect giving an open ticket to us because we are one of the only idiots to fully adopt it.

Now before it we were ok, everyone who wants to ignore it still do. What is the point of it for us ? All it does is tie us up and make us have to police the rest of the world.

Big business earns money out of having it because as long as they can say its their Governments fault for not adopting the human rights act fully or not police it properly then its ok for us to earn out of the misery of others because we have done our bit. Its all a scam in my eyes, if we were serious about human rights then we would just have nothing to do with the nations that don't have commonality with us and treat their citizens like we do, we don't need a rule book to do that, and what's the point of one anyhow if you don't stand firm on it other than being something to make you feel better about the world.

It was already in law,we have for a long time been innocent until guilty and had the right to council.

What part did we not have and why did we feel the need we have to highlight facts with the HR act ?

What has it done for us other than complicate things and make life harder ?

What has it done for us other than complicate things and make life harder ?
Which parts of it complicate things and make life harder?

What has it done for us other than complicate things and make life harder ?
Ok, let's put it another way, how has it made your life harder or complicated it?

Tell me h2m, would you prefer that any or all of the following protections didn't apply to you or a member of your family?

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

http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Governmentcitizensandrights/Yourrightsandresponsibilities/DG_4002951

Which of the above protections were non existent under law before enacting the Human Rights Act?

BF, I've got the utmost respect for you but I'm of the firm opinion that those Godless sons of motherless whores are all about the green. I've personal exerience of these wretched bottom feeders and I can assure you that they're beyond reprehensible in their dealings.

LOL, that's fair enough SV! I'm sure you're right in some cases, but I know a few solicitors who work in human and childrens rights, they're not rich people by any means and are well motivated and committed to achieving a fairer society for everybody.

Which of the above protections were non existent under law before enacting the Human Rights Act?

Have a read of this article BP, I posted a link to it earlier that seems to have been deleted.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/mar/02/human-rights-act.

Have a read of this article BP, I posted a link to it earlier that seems to have been deleted.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/mar/02/human-rights-act.This reply from your link sums it up.

It's a bit much to trumpet that the HRA is providing an inquest in a killing that was caused by the HRA, isn't it? Mis-reading and mis-understand of the HRA, I grant you, but a significant number of probation staff were on the case, all mis-understanding together.
And that's how it complicates things.
I don't get how a failing of the system makes us need the HR act, after all its shown enough failings of its own implementation.

Why are we any better off with it than before we had it ? people keep asking their own questions without answering the initial one.

If there's enough answers then maybe we can form a list as intended ?

Which parts of it complicate things and make life harder?Check BF's link.

You mean watered in the blood of people of this nation ?
The struggle has been fought and pretty much won here to have those rights in our law before this, All this act does is have us spill more of our blood
trying to push on our values to everyone else, as well as pass on these rights to anyone not comfortable where they are where this charter is not being implemented and in effect giving an open ticket to us because we are one of the only idiots to fully adopt it.

Now before it we were ok, everyone who wants to ignore it still do. What is the point of it for us ? All it does is tie us up and make us have to police the rest of the world.

Big business earns money out of having it because as long as they can say its their Governments fault for not adopting the human rights act fully or not police it properly then its ok for us to earn out of the misery of others because we have done our bit. Its all a scam in my eyes, if we were serious about human rights then we would just have nothing to do with the nations that don't have commonality with us and treat their citizens like we do, we don't need a rule book to do that, and what's the point of one anyhow if you don't stand firm on it other than being something to make you feel better about the world.

OK, all of the above is dearly held sentiment although I'm afraid I don't necessarily understand it especially this bit

Big business earns money out of having [the HRA] because as long as they can say it's their Governments fault for not adopting the human rights act fully, or not police it properly, then its ok for us to earn out of the misery of others

but it has nothing to do with the Human Rights Act, European Convention on Human Rights or the UN declaration of human rights.


In answer to your question, and perhaps to make elucidate why you're having trouble getting a straight answer. it's worth a focusing more closely on one aspect.

Most killing is illegal. How does this benefit me? This is age old human rights legislation that has been successively been defined, redefined as other crimes in other circumstances, and so on through the ages.

What has murder legislation done for us?

yes it is, EVERY right winger on here that follow the same pattern, have a problem with the human rights act deeming it to only help terrorists, immigrants and criminals
ive seen plenty of em harping on about getting rid of it for years on here

Would your definition of being a 'right winger', be someone who doesn't support the Milligoon and Harperson trade union alliance? :rolleyes:

I happen to agree that we are better with it than without, but I can partially understand why people have grabbed hold of this act and see it as a criminal's bill of rights.

I think it was the tabloids that did that by highlighting the minority of cases that appear at odds with commonsense-but that happens in all areas of law, not just human rights.

OK, all of the above is dearly held sentiment although I'm afraid I don't necessarily understand it especially this bit

but it has nothing to do with the Human Rights Act, European Convention on Human Rights or the UN declaration of human rights.


In answer to your question, and perhaps to make elucidate why you're having trouble getting a straight answer. it's worth a focusing more closely on one aspect.

Most killing is illegal. How does this benefit me? This is age old human rights legislation that has been successively been defined, redefined as other crimes in other circumstances, and so on through the ages.

What has murder legislation done for us?Why do people who don't have answers always come up with questions ?

Maybe you should start up a topic regarding your questions ?

All these pages on this topic and no one has come up with even an hand full of answers to the question, although its good to debate things its always best to try grasp some fact first. If the question can't or won't be answered then that's fine but you can't then expect people top answer your own questioning as a sort of get out clause.
Established so far... Judges and people who practice law have an extra work load, criminals have more rights of appeal (as stated with the first answer), criminals have a right to vote (which Im personally for). Anything else that I may have missed ?
I have not mentioned the rights of immigrants to come settle here ect because Im looking for points that have benefited the British citizen and I have not mentioned benefits because Im sure we looked after the least well off before the HR act as well.

I just think you're asking an unanswerable question, and then claiming the lack of answers as evidence to support your own personal views.

Do you have children? Have you ever been abducted and held against your will by the state? Have you ever read a newspaper? Voted? Not been murdered?

No single piece of legislation has made these freedoms possible - it's the continuous process of embedding these values that has made these rights you and I have respected, aspired to and ultimately now with the HRA, enforceable.

I just think you're asking an unanswerable question, and then claiming the lack of answers as evidence to support your own personal views.

Do you have children? Have you ever been abducted and held against your will by the state? Have you ever read a newspaper? Voted? Not been murdered?

No single piece of legislation has made these freedoms possible - it's the continuous process of embedding these values that has made these rights you and I have respected, aspired to and ultimately now with the HRA, enforceable.How many topics on here get made to support someone else's personal views ?

I don't have to even put any personal views up, the question being unanswerable is the point of the topic, nothing more.

If you have something that only has a majority negative effect and little by positive for yourself then isn't it logical to question why ?
If you had a stone in your shoe do you carry on walking or stop a moment to see what it is and if its worth leaving in ?

Do you have children? Have you ever been abducted and held against your will by the state? Have you ever read a newspaper? Voted? Not been murdered?
le.Yes I have children. No I have not been abducted, could I be abducted ? yes. Even with the HR charter it did not stop people going to Guantanamo, the fact that they were innocent and had human rights did not stop it happening, they just got hush money for it.
Have I ever read a newspaper ? well yes but then again people have been doing that for years before and after HRC, freedom of the press preceded the HR charter.
As for voting, well we invented modern day democracy so yes its fare to assume I could have done that before HR charter.
As for not been murdered do you realise how stupid this question is ?

Like I said What has it done for us ? Im not talking about what you think its done for others, that's another topic Im sure.

What rights did I not have before it ? 'What has it done for us' ?

I'm guessing you didn't have the right to enforce or pursue a breach of your human rights through the UK courts.

I'm guessing you didn't have the right to enforce or pursue a breach of your human rights through the UK courts.Im guessing next weeks lottery numbers, I bet Im more on the ball than you :hihi:

I don't have to even put any personal views up, the question being unanswerable is the point of the topic, nothing more.


The question is not unanswerable.....

But to get an answer you need to understand the history behind the European Convention of Human Rights.

This was written largely by British lawyers in the late 1940s/50s in response to the two big issues of the time, which was how to prevent another Holocaust and to provide something of a buttress against the rise of Communism.

Most of the rights enshrined in the Convention had existed in the UK for several years. Some of these rights were fought for by citizens against the state and some by the work of enlightened people like Wilberforce etc.

Up until the ECHR these rights hadn't been written down in one place and some of them existed as rather nebulous concepts within common law. From a UK perspective all the ECHR did was gather together all these rights and strengthen them by writing them into statute. The only issue was that the route by which people could assert their rights under the Convention was by direct appeal at the European Court of Human Rights which was costly both in time and money. All the Human Rights Act did was allow cases to be heard in the UK Courts.

Arguments about legal aid and it scope is better saved for another thread but without legal aid you would be denying poor people redress under the Convention (or indeed existing UK law) and so would be essentially be denying them their rights.

The ECHR only applies to dealings between an individual and the State which in the UK means the Government, Councils and agencies such as the NHS, police and other public bodies.

Unfortunately, like H&S, Human Rights have been abused by people with no understanding of what they are and it has become an easy excuse for some particular course of action (or inaction).

By and large, when a case has been brought before a Court the decision has been in line with the ECHR and common sense. Very few of the "Human Rights" excuses are the result of a Court case.

Occasionally, you get decisions which are infuriating but if we are going to accept that there are some rights which are so basic that everyone has them then you have to accept that everyone has them.

Of course, you take the position that some people deserve fewer rights but history shows that whenever you do that you eventually end up here:

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Poland/Auschwitz/Auschwitz12.html

The question is not unanswerable.....

But to get an answer you need to understand the history behind the European Convention of Human Rights.

This was written largely by British lawyers in the late 1940s/50s in response to the two big issues of the time, which was how to prevent another Holocaust and to provide something of a buttress against the rise of Communism.

Most of the rights enshrined in the Convention had existed in the UK for several years. Some of these rights were fought for by citizens against the state and some by the work of enlightened people like Wilberforce etc.

Up until the ECHR these rights hadn't been written down in one place and some of them existed as rather nebulous concepts within common law. From a UK perspective all the ECHR did was gather together all these rights and strengthen them by writing them into statute. The only issue was that the route by which people could assert their rights under the Convention was by direct appeal at the European Court of Human Rights which was costly both in time and money. All the Human Rights Act did was allow cases to be heard in the UK Courts.

Arguments about legal aid and it scope is better saved for another thread but without legal aid you would be denying poor people redress under the Convention (or indeed existing UK law) and so would be essentially be denying them their rights.

The ECHR only applies to dealings between an individual and the State which in the UK means the Government, Councils and agencies such as the NHS, police and other public bodies.

Unfortunately, like H&S, Human Rights have been abused by people with no understanding of what they are and it has become an easy excuse for some particular course of action (or inaction).

By and large, when a case has been brought before a Court the decision has been in line with the ECHR and common sense. Very few of the "Human Rights" excuses are the result of a Court case.

Occasionally, you get decisions which are infuriating but if we are going to accept that there are some rights which are so basic that everyone has them then you have to accept that everyone has them.

Of course, you take the position that some people deserve fewer rights but history shows that whenever you do that you eventually end up here:

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Poland/Auschwitz/Auschwitz12.html

Great post andyofborg

its helped the criminal and the immigrant.

its helped the criminal and the immigrant.

no it hasn't

its helped the criminal and the immigrant.

Unfortunately its these types who have learned how to EXPLOIT it to their own advantage. This act protects all, but some more than others.

I wasn't hoping for it to be un answerable, although I stated above that it was but that was after someone else made that statement.

I was kind of hoping that people come on and form a list so we could say 'apart from x, x, x, x and x, what has the human rights act done for us' ? sort of thing.

The fact is that its damn difficult to really answer it and people just come on with questions of their own or points about why its good for the global community when the question is in fact about us.
I think no matter what ever the good intentions it hasn't really done a great deal by way of good for us (or we would be sat here with the list) so you can't help then ask the question why WE would want it. Its apparent that its done nothing but cost us since we had anything to do with it, no matter who drew it up or for what.

Unfortunately its these types who have learned how to EXPLOIT it to their own advantage. This act protects all, but some more than others.
and you was doing so well till the end part

and you was doing so well till the end part

From the famous statement " All men are born equal, but some are more equal than others". Think about it..............

Well, it did explicitly guarentee our government the right to stop aliens getting up to unwanted political shenangins, which if they're anything like the ones in Mars Attacks is probably a good thing.

Well, it did explicitly guarentee our government the right to stop aliens getting up to unwanted political shenangins, which if they're anything like the ones in Mars Attacks is probably a good thing.

Stick to gardening.:hihi::hihi::hihi:

Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham) There is a rising tide of anger in this country at the apparently increasing number of judgments from remote European courts that fly in the face of sound common sense. Increasingly, those judgments are defying the will of the House and are overriding law passed after due consideration here and voted on by elected representatives of the British people. We must deal with that dangerous phenomenon.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1996/mar/06/european-convention-on-human-rights

Unfortunately its these types who have learned how to EXPLOIT it to their own advantage. This act protects all, but some more than others.

it protects everyone equally

Stick to gardening.:hihi::hihi::hihi:

Article 16 Restrictions on political activity of aliens (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1/part/I/chapter/13)

Nothing in Articles 10, 11 and 14 shall be regarded as preventing the High Contracting Parties from imposing restrictions on the political activity of aliens.

[homer simpson]Stupid aliens and their stupid politics.[/homer simpson]

Mr. Jacques Arnold (Gravesham) There is a rising tide of anger in this country at the apparently increasing number of judgments from remote European courts that fly in the face of sound common sense. Increasingly, those judgments are defying the will of the House and are overriding law passed after due consideration here and voted on by elected representatives of the British people. We must deal with that dangerous phenomenon.
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1996/mar/06/european-convention-on-human-rights

perhaps what we should do is make better laws

anyway, most judgements are now made by british courts

it protects everyone equally

Actually it doesn't in reality. It offers a potential avenue to pursue for those who can afford long protracted legal cases arguing technicallities either by dint of their wealth, their supporters wealth or their fitting the legal aid criteria. If the average Joe has been on the recieving end of maltreatment by the authorities they don't have the money to throw at long winded cases with a longshot chance of a win.

Actually it doesn't in reality. It offers a potential avenue to pursue for those who can afford long protracted legal cases arguing technicallities either by dint of their wealth, their supporters wealth or their fitting the legal aid criteria. If the average Joe has been on the recieving end of maltreatment by the authorities they don't have the money to throw at long winded cases with a longshot chance of a win.

Just as I said " Some are more equal than others." Criminals- no job, no income. Asylum seekers,- no job, no income. = legal aid funded by the tax payer, the very guy who cant afford to protect himself in court.

How many topics on here get made to support someone else's personal views ?

I don't have to even put any personal views up, the question being unanswerable is the point of the topic, nothing more.

If you have something that only has a majority negative effect and little by positive for yourself then isn't it logical to question why ?
If you had a stone in your shoe do you carry on walking or stop a moment to see what it is and if its worth leaving in ?

I think your objections to the HRA are better directed at the legal industry. I think there's a strong case for universally accessible justice based on the tenets encapsulated most recently within the HRA, and with the HRA citizens are better placed to ensure those tenets are adhered to not just by individuals but corporate entities too.

If you really want to know what the benefits of the HRA act are going to be, you'll need to examine the state of our rights in a couple of hundred years.

I think your objections to the HRA are better directed at the legal industry. I think there's a strong case for universally accessible justice based on the tenets encapsulated most recently within the HRA, and with the HRA citizens are better placed to ensure those tenets are adhered to not just by individuals but corporate entities too.

If you really want to know what the benefits of the HRA act are going to be, you'll need to examine the state of our rights in a couple of hundred years.

Jam tomorrow eh ? :hihi:

peter sutcliffe has now taken this to strasbourg because of his human rights not been dealt with properly:loopy:

peter sutcliffe has now taken this to strasbourg because of his human rights not been dealt with properly:loopy:

This proves several points.:loopy:

I think there's a strong case for universally accessible justice based on the tenets encapsulated most recently within the HRA, and with the HRA citizens are better placed to ensure those tenets are adhered to not just by individuals but corporate entities too.

How does the concept of universality sit with homeless people being allowed to be locked up just because they are homeless under the act? (A5, 1, e)

On news night just now they are discussing alternatives to prison and the issue of community punishment.
Its was said the it won't work because over 60% of the population think community punishment/service is too soft and isn't good enough and that it would have to be real work out in the community where it would be seen that they were doing proper graft, even if for just a few hours a day (sentiments shared by Ken Clarke) or it wouldn't be acceptable.
But then an ex criminal shouts out 'what you talking about some sort of chain gang', then everyone went quiet and shut up/went off subject.

Do you think that has anything to do with people knowing the HRA would screw that line of thought up before it could even get off the ground ?

Now they are talking about maybe they should do real jobs in prison (all about the costs), but even that would get thrown out after the amount court cases clogs up the legal system or someone takes it to Europe to get it stopped.

Does anyone wonder why prisons are easy or we have a rising immigrant prison population ? maybe its because no one has the stomach or authority to change it with the human rights act, thus making the prison system that easy that its just something people accept as being apart of their life rather than a form of punishment or somewhere your bothered about going to.

I agree that prisoners being allowed to vote, it makes a lot of sense to me but TV's stereo's games consoles and menus ? Sounds a better life than some have on the out and why some prefer to re offend and go back I don't doubt.

How does the concept of universality sit with homeless people being allowed to be locked up just because they are homeless under the act? (A5, 1, e)

I'm far from any kind of legal technician, but like most people I know there's always a difference between concept and reality. Sometimes it's a leap, sometimes a gulf.

I'm far from any kind of legal technician, but like most people I know there's always a difference between concept and reality. Sometimes it's a leap, sometimes a gulf.

I agree, but if we are to welcome this act then surely an act introduced in the late 20th century as an alledged improvement to the rights of the British people should protect the most vulnerable? The fact that it criminalises the most vulnerable in society for no more than their lack of a home should ring alarm bells that this act neither protects the genuinely vulnerable nor the law abiding majority.

The question is not unanswerable.....

But to get an answer you need to understand the history behind the European Convention of Human Rights.

This was written largely by British lawyers in the late 1940s/50s in response to the two big issues of the time, which was how to prevent another Holocaust and to provide something of a buttress against the rise of Communism.

Most of the rights enshrined in the Convention had existed in the UK for several years. Some of these rights were fought for by citizens against the state and some by the work of enlightened people like Wilberforce etc.

Up until the ECHR these rights hadn't been written down in one place and some of them existed as rather nebulous concepts within common law. From a UK perspective all the ECHR did was gather together all these rights and strengthen them by writing them into statute. The only issue was that the route by which people could assert their rights under the Convention was by direct appeal at the European Court of Human Rights which was costly both in time and money. All the Human Rights Act did was allow cases to be heard in the UK Courts.

Arguments about legal aid and it scope is better saved for another thread but without legal aid you would be denying poor people redress under the Convention (or indeed existing UK law) and so would be essentially be denying them their rights.

The ECHR only applies to dealings between an individual and the State which in the UK means the Government, Councils and agencies such as the NHS, police and other public bodies.

Unfortunately, like H&S, Human Rights have been abused by people with no understanding of what they are and it has become an easy excuse for some particular course of action (or inaction).

By and large, when a case has been brought before a Court the decision has been in line with the ECHR and common sense. Very few of the "Human Rights" excuses are the result of a Court case.

Occasionally, you get decisions which are infuriating but if we are going to accept that there are some rights which are so basic that everyone has them then you have to accept that everyone has them.

Of course, you take the position that some people deserve fewer rights but history shows that whenever you do that you eventually end up here:

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/Poland/Auschwitz/Auschwitz12.html

This is a well thought out and accurate assessment of where the Human Right Act comes from, the history of the ECHR, and the actual effect of the
HRA.

It would help if everyone posting on the forum, and indeed people spouting their opinions in life in general, actually had some knowledge of the facts before giving the tabloid headline knee jerk answer of "charter for criminals and immigrants".

Firstly, the ECHR and the HRA are not about giving criminals an easy life. They simply set out the fundamental human rights to which all people are entitled. Since most people will fortunately not encounter the situation where the state seeks to interfere with those rights, they will not consciously have any need to rely on the HRA.

Secondly, in the cases which tend to attract tabloid ranting, the reporting is so distorted that the actual facts of the case are ignored in favour of just generating outrage. In most cases, the state has ignored or not followed its own rules in dealing with an individual, and it is that failure to follow its own rules which is the subject of the complaint.

In other words, the state has introduced laws which it then finds are inconveniently in the way of them doing something, or which mean that the govt cannot do something as easily as it wants, so it just ignores its own rules to get the result it wants. If we are to have the rule of law and champion that rule of law around the world, then the govt really needs to follow its own rules.

In cases where there is a challenge to something the state wants to do because it does infringe on a basic human right, it does tend to be a case where that individual faces or has been subject to torture or death. I challenge anyone to produce details of any case (including a link to the case report itself) where the HRA has been used by someone to get a Playstation in prison.

Oh, and for examples of cases where the HRA has been used for something good, it has been relied upon by elderly couples who, after 50 or 60 years of marriage, are separated by local authorities just for the sake of administrative convenience and cost when those people need to go into nursing homes (http://www.ourhumanrightsstories.org.uk/case-study/human-rights-act-used-stop-older-couple-being-seperated)

Oh, and for examples of cases where the HRA has been used for something good, it has been relied upon by elderly couples who, after 50 or 60 years of marriage, are separated by local authorities just for the sake of administrative convenience and cost when those people need to go into nursing homes (http://www.ourhumanrightsstories.org.uk/case-study/human-rights-act-used-stop-older-couple-being-seperated)

Didn't you know Mr & Mrs Driscoll were bank robbing asylum seekers from Dublin? ;)

Since most people will fortunately not encounter the situation where the state seeks to interfere with those rights, they will not consciously have any need to rely on the HRA.Perhaps because most people don't break the law or try to screw the state for all they can?

Perhaps because most people don't break the law or try to screw the state for all they can?

What about when the state tries to screw you?

What about when the state tries to screw you?Why would it do that, unless I was doing something illegal or antisocial?

Why would it do that, unless I was doing something illegal or antisocial?

You've never heard of people who've been convicted of offences because of fabricated evidence or totally law abiding people who are dealt with unconstitutionally by a public body?

Did you read the story that Archadvocate linked to?

You've never heard of people who've been convicted of offences because of fabricated evidence or totally law abiding people who are dealt with unconstitutionally by a public body?

Did you read the story that Archadvocate linked to?

Don't be silly, that contained facts.

You've never heard of people who've been convicted of offences because of fabricated evidence or totally law abiding people who are dealt with unconstitutionally by a public body? Yes, I've heard of those extremely rare cases, but as I don't associate with criminals I've not come across anybody who's faced fabricated charges.
If you don't break the law, you don't get on the wrong side of the Police (from what I saw on a short-lived post yesterday, you should know that more than most).

Did you read the story that Archadvocate linked to?People who pay their way in life - including for their healthcare, will get what they pay for. Those who didn't make provision to pay for themselves, and rely on state funded care, should be glad of anything they get, because they're not paying for it.
If they were going to be separated, that should have been a lesson in why people should be responsible for financing their own care. Zero sympathy.

Im guessing next weeks lottery numbers, I bet Im more on the ball than you :hihi:

Clearly you are not ;)

Yes, I've heard of those extremely rare cases, but as I don't associate with criminals I've not come across anybody who's faced fabricated charges.
If you don't break the law, you don't get on the wrong side of the Police. There are thousands of people who get on the wrong side of the police without ever breaking the law, you can't insulate yourself from the possibility of that happening.

This article relates to a man who was falsely accused of rape, and illustrates the protection offered by the HRA and the gap it fills in legislation.

http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2010/05/17/malicious-prosecution-against-police-not-breach-of-human-rights/


People who pay their way in life - including for their healthcare, will get what they pay for. Those who didn't make provision to pay for themselves, and rely on state funded care, should be glad of anything they get, because they're not paying for it.
If they were going to be separated, that should have been a lesson in why people should be responsible for financing their own care. Zero sympathy. But the point you're missing is that the state provides a standard which it will be accountable for if it fails to live up to it-that's the whole point. The link was just an example, I'm sure there will be many that apply to people who have led totally independent lives and have made provision for themselves.

There are thousands of people who get on the wrong side of the police without ever breaking the law, you can't insulate yourself from the possibility of that happening.
This article relates to a man who was falsely accused of rape, and illustrates the protection offered by the HRA and the gap it fills in legislation.
http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2010/05/17/malicious-prosecution-against-police-not-breach-of-human-rights/ Evidence was not presented - that doesn't mean he didn't do it.
I'm pretty sure that the police don't just drive down high streets looking for people to bundle into the bakc of the van and fit up for a crime.

Did you miss the title to that link: "Claims against the police still difficult, and no help from human rights law"

But the point you're missing is that the state provides a standard which it will be accountable for if it fails to live up to it-that's the whole point. The link was just an example, I'm sure there will be many that apply to people who have led totally independent lives and have made provision for themselves. I don't miss the point at all - I just don't think the state should be acountable for anything more than bread and water for people who haven't paid their own way.

Evidence was not presented - that doesn't mean he didn't do it. Thankfully it does in this country.


I'm pretty sure that the police don't just drive down high streets looking for people to bundle into the bakc of the van and fit up for a crime. I don't think anyones suggesting they do and if the rights of the public were being so obviously abused we wouldn't need a human rights act-there'd be anarchy.

Did you miss the title to that link: "Claims against the police still difficult, and no help from human rights law" The point was that the HRA approaches such cases differently than 'ordinary' legislation might.

I don't miss the point at all - I just don't think the state should be acountable for anything more than bread and water for people who haven't paid their own way. The state should be accountable for everything it does in my opinion, it is a servant of the people not the other way around.

I just don't think the state should be acountable for anything more than bread and water for people who haven't paid their own way.
You want human rights for some, and sub-human rights for others?

You want human rights for some, and sub-human rights for others?
hes the perfect human being...........obviously

You want human rights for some, and sub-human rights for others?

That's clearly what he's implying.

You want human rights for some, and sub-human rights for others?
That's clearly what he's implying.Neither really gents.

We had rights before we were signed up to Europe, they just weren't as obsessively detailed and complicated as they are now. The UK wasn't an oppressive dictatorship up to the moment we signed up for EHR - it was already one of the most free and caring societies on Earth. The trouble is, no matter how much you give some people, it will never be enough.

I do have a belief which some of you find impossible to understand - the concept that people might just have the ability to be responsible for their owns actions, income and future - rather than expecting others to provide for them.

If we didn't manufacture this socialist mindset that 'the state is responsible for everything', perhaps more people would take the initiative and be responsible for their own needs a little more often.

If we didn't manufacture this socialist mindset that 'the state is responsible for everything'
What has human rights got to do with socialism? America declared their 'Constitution' in 1788, the French a year later. It's a long way from 'socialism'.

I do have a belief which some of you find impossible to understand - the concept that people might just have the ability to be responsible for their owns actions, income and future - rather than expecting others to provide for them.
You seem to be painting us in your head as communists. This has very little to do with political systems. Left or right, surely human rights apply to both? Fascist and communist alike have the freedom to run for government. Surely the fact that they don't get voted in shows us some value in human rights - we know they'd disappear quickly under both systems.

As much as i dislike Rupert Murdoch, he has the right to run a newspaper if he wishes. I dislike people who mug old women, but they have a right to a fair trial and the right to live in prison without fear of torture or attack. Your attempt to portray it as a politically one-sided issue is silly.

Neither really gents.
The UK wasn't an oppressive dictatorship up to the moment we signed up for EHR - it was already one of the most free and caring societies on Earth. The trouble is, no matter how much you give some people, it will never be enough. Why are you confusing the HRA with state sponsored benevolence? As citizens we have rights that should be robustly defended since none of us know when we might come to rely on them. Nobody's talking about oppressive dictatorship either, I dont have a vision of jackbooted militia rounding people up into paddy wagons and driving off with them.

I do have a belief which some of you find impossible to understand - the concept that people might just have the ability to be responsible for their owns actions, income and future - rather than expecting others to provide for them. What does that have to do with the HRA? I'm sure if the council slapped a compulsory purchase order on your property you'd pursue all legal means to have it overturned-the HRA might be one of them.

If we didn't manufacture this socialist mindset that 'the state is responsible for everything', perhaps more people would take the initiative and be responsible for their own needs a little more often.Again, what does that have to do with your or my human rights? You can come into conflict with the state and public bodies for any number of different reasons.