The Yorkshire Ripper is trying for freedom

[Heyesey 11]

If he is sectioned under the metal health act does he still have the same right?

 

I'm assuming no, since the first part of their campaign is to have him declared sane and put back in the normal prison system.

 

As a mentally unstable person not safe to be let loose in public, anyone can be kept locked up forever, so far as I know.

[Emperor Wang 10]

What I think is irrelevant. He is a human being, therefore he HAS rights whether we like it or not.

You seem to miss two points.

 

Firstly, what we all think or want is not irrelevant. Laws are set by governments, and governments are chosen by voters.

 

Sadly, I doubt one of the major parties would have the spine to include reintroduction of capital punishment on their manifesto, but that's all it would take to bring back hanging for the likes of Sutcliffe.

 

Second, he only has those perverted ‘human rights’ because the asinine Labour cabinet signed us up for it – again, the result of votes (made on the whole by the less cerebrally gifted of the great unwashed out there).

[Heyesey 11]

You seem to miss two points.

 

No I don't. My post didn't deal with what rights he should have, but what rights he has. People's opinions on what rights he has are, indeed, completely irrelevant. The only thing that's relevant is the law as it stands.

[Plain Talker 11]

You seem to miss two points.

 

Firstly, what we all think or want is not irrelevant. Laws are set by governments, and governments are chosen by voters.

 

Sadly, I doubt one of the major parties would have the spine to include reintroduction of capital punishment on their manifesto, but that's all it would take to bring back hanging for the likes of Sutcliffe.

 

Second, he only has those perverted ‘human rights’ because the asinine Labour cabinet signed us up for it – again, the result of votes (made on the whole by the less cerebrally gifted of the great unwashed out there).

 

Talking of the cerebrally challenged,

 

We can't have the DP here in the UK, not since we signed up to be part of the EU. It wasn't labour who brought us into the European community, it was Edward Heath's Tory government who held the referendum for that.

[Heyesey 11]

It wasn't labour who brought us into the European community, it was Edward Heath's Tory government who held the referendum for that.

 

 

It was, indeed, Heath that took us in, but it was the following Labour government which held the referendum on whether or not to stay in.

 

And it wouldn't matter anyway. It is not the EU which prevents us having a death penalty, it's the Court of Human Rights, which is not an EU organisation.

[Emperor Wang 10]

Talking of the cerebrally challenged,

 

We can't have the DP here in the UK, not since we signed up to be part of the EU. It wasn't labour who brought us into the European community, it was Edward Heath's Tory government who held the referendum for that.

As Heyesey correctly states, our signing up to the Commission for Human Rights was quite separate to the EU, and something pushed through by Tony Blair (by remarkable coincidence when his wife was in a position to make money from it) without referendum or any opportunity for the public to make its choice.

 

Do at least try to get your facts straight before you try taking on people who are less ignorant, especially if you are going to make yourself look silly by implying that others are ‘cerebrally challenged’ simply because you do not understand recent political history.

[Bonny 10]

Back to the thread - I haven't read every single post but skimmed most of them.

 

I was under the impression that he got 30 years in 1982 with a recommendation that he serve the full term. Also, I thought the jury found him not to be criminally insane?

[Fareast 10]

This whole area of what is legal at the moment and what our opinions might be about that particular situation, is an interesting one.

 

On one simplistic level, if a law is a law, then our opinions might seem irrelevant in the sense that we probably can't change the situation immediately ; so far, so good.

 

However if there is a groundswell of opinion about any law, and that opinion is expressed, it could very well alter the particular case in the future........or similar cases in the future.

 

In that sense, expressing an opinion about Sutcliffe's legal rights and general situation is not irrelevant, in my opinion [ ! ].

[Heyesey 11]

In that sense, expressing an opinion about Sutcliffe's legal rights and general situation is not irrelevant, in my opinion [ ! ].

 

 

It may be relevant in the terms of the wider context, but when people start berating me and calling me scum for pointing out a legal truism, no, it is not relevant. What's law is law. Whether or not it should be is not relevant to whether or not it is.

[prioryx 10]

If someone commits an inhuman act surely that makes them inhuman and therefor they cannot human rights.

[Jason Bourne 11]

"lawyer Saimo Chahal, a partner at London-based Bindmans & Partners, "

 

That makes a nice change. For a minute there I was worried it was going be Cherie Booth QC of Matrix Chambers

[Heyesey 11]

If someone commits an inhuman act surely that makes them inhuman and therefor they cannot human rights.

 

Humanity is a genetic trait, not a moral one. If you're born a human being, you are a human being, no matter how despicably evil you might be.

 

 

Moreover, the point about granting of human rights is not what it says about the person getting them. It's what it says about the person, or people, giving them. It says "no matter how immoral, evil or despicable YOU might be, WE have certain standards and will not abandon them."