ladylinda
Moderatorz
Poetry Editor
July 2011 Member of the Month, May 2014 Member of the Month
Posts: 4,901
|
Post by ladylinda on Oct 17, 2011 18:51:29 GMT -5
In the first place law gets interpreted by judges. Some of them have less brain cells than the average mugger. Different judges give different rulings. For what it's worth I don't agree with either of these decisions by the courts (especially the rapist). Human rights is supposed to be about protecting people from abuse. The trouble is that civil rights are getting increasingly confused with human rights, both by the PC mob and by the far right. What's happening is that idiotic decisions like this are strengthening the hands of people who don't believe that ANY of us have human rights and whose basic agenda is to enslave the people. Throwing the baby out with the bathwater ain't the answer but pulling out the plug and putting some clean water into the bath certainly is. All very true, Lin, but it seems to be getting worse, not better, and THAT is what sticks in the craw Mark, I think it's largely the fault of the judges. I hate the way my country is being betrayed by this sort of nonsense every bit as much as you do. It makes me want to throw up when I read "judgements" like this. On the other hand, I worry that people will think that human rights are something to be ashamed of and discarded rather than something to be proud of and fought for. IMO, without human rights our country would be poorer in every way. I'd prefer a British Bill of Rights but (on the whole) I think MOST of the EHRA is OK. The bloody judges, none of them ever having lived within spitting distance of the streets, haven't got the first clue how REAL people live. It's NOT them who have to live with muggers and nonces and rapists; it's the ordinary Joes and Josephines like you and me who do. I reckon all judges ought to be made to live in some of the roughest ends in Britain for about two years. If they survived then maybe they might make some of their decisions on reality rather than the privileged middle-class ignorance they come from.
|
|
|
Post by markindurham on Oct 18, 2011 2:14:20 GMT -5
All very true, Lin, but it seems to be getting worse, not better, and THAT is what sticks in the craw Mark, I think it's largely the fault of the judges. I hate the way my country is being betrayed by this sort of nonsense every bit as much as you do. It makes me want to throw up when I read "judgements" like this. On the other hand, I worry that people will think that human rights are something to be ashamed of and discarded rather than something to be proud of and fought for. IMO, without human rights our country would be poorer in every way. I'd prefer a British Bill of Rights but (on the whole) I think MOST of the EHRA is OK. The bloody judges, none of them ever having lived within spitting distance of the streets, haven't got the first clue how REAL people live. It's NOT them who have to live with muggers and nonces and rapists; it's the ordinary Joes and Josephines like you and me who do. I reckon all judges ought to be made to live in some of the roughest ends in Britain for about two years. If they survived then maybe they might make some of their decisions on reality rather than the privileged middle-class ignorance they come from. We need Judge John Deed However... Never mind British judges, here's a prime example of the ECHR judiciary in action... www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2050322/European-Rights-judge-bribery-case-sparks-fury-using-position-stop-investigation-wife.htmlGood, eh?
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Oct 18, 2011 2:53:08 GMT -5
would disagree with you on that....one of my friends son in law is a judge and he lives among real people.....and is pretty real himself...this idea that judges and barristers live unreal lives is very out of date...judges are just people from a huge variety of backgrounds just like every one else and exactly how do real people live """"haven't got the first clue how REAL people live."""" """It's NOT them who have to live with muggers and nonces and rapists; it's the ordinary Joes and Josephines like you and me who do."""" i dont as far as i know live among muggers..nonces or rapists...neither do huge swathes of the population..so who exactly are these REAL PEOPLE? people are real people... regardless of where they live they may not live in tower blocks or inner city slums but it doesnt make them any less real
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Oct 18, 2011 2:57:09 GMT -5
no it wouldnt be poorer....it wasnt poorer before HR was invented...and what is laughable was we were a much better society before HR...more law abiding..less greedy..less violent..and considerably safer and all with out so much of a whiff of ooman rights i know that for a fact...
|
|
ladylinda
Moderatorz
Poetry Editor
July 2011 Member of the Month, May 2014 Member of the Month
Posts: 4,901
|
Post by ladylinda on Oct 18, 2011 10:45:46 GMT -5
no it wouldnt be poorer....it wasnt poorer before HR was invented...and what is laughable was we were a much better society before HR...more law abiding..less greedy..less violent..and considerably safer and all with out so much of a whiff of ooman rights i know that for a fact... To take your points in reverse order, Mouse. Your last sentence is an OPINION and NOT a FACT. Human rights weren't "invented" but have a long and honourable tradition. From the seventeenth century onwards they've gradually come to form the basis of law and justice in England, Britain and the West. The increase in crime is partly down to better recording, partly to the larger number of offences on the books (Blair threw heaps on them into law) and partly because of the massive immigration we've had to endure. Even so, I disagree totally with you that things were "better" before human rights because human rights have been enshrined in the law of our country for well over two hundred years and ultimately go back to Anglo-Saxon times. And I think we're a LOT better off than we were even a hundred years ago.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Oct 18, 2011 11:23:31 GMT -5
no it wouldnt be poorer....it wasnt poorer before HR was invented...and what is laughable was we were a much better society before HR...more law abiding..less greedy..less violent..and considerably safer and all with out so much of a whiff of ooman rights i know that for a fact... To take your points in reverse order, Mouse. Your last sentence is an OPINION and NOT a FACT. Human rights weren't "invented" but have a long and honourable tradition. From the seventeenth century onwards they've gradually come to form the basis of law and justice in England, Britain and the West. The increase in crime is partly down to better recording, partly to the larger number of offences on the books (Blair threw heaps on them into law) and partly because of the massive immigration we've had to endure. Even so, I disagree totally with you that things were "better" before human rights because human rights have been enshrined in the law of our country for well over two hundred years and ultimately go back to Anglo-Saxon times. And I think we're a LOT better off than we were even a hundred years ago. you mean we had rights in CIVIL law and so we did... the celtic britons and the celts Irish had even more rights in brehon law human rights were invented for a post war europe for europeans in that post war period..they were named human rights..a misnomer if ever there was one i know it for a fact as i lived it ......and what is laughable was we were a much better society before HR...more law abiding..less greedy..less violent..and considerably safer and all with out so much of a whiff of ooman rights i know the streets were overall safer...i know we didnt have teenagers with knives to be used as weapons being killed allover the place..inspite of teddy boys having flick knives..we were freer to walk about unhindered gun crime was unheard of in every day life although possibly there were many more gun owners the schools and hospitals didnt need security..you could take a pen knife to school for sharpening pencils and no one batted an eye and yes you could leave your doors open..even in areas where there was some thing to steal a criminal got punished not made ou to be a victim people had manners and yes there were criminals and yes there were bad areas..but by and large criminality passed most people by blair created 3,000 new laws
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Oct 18, 2011 11:52:28 GMT -5
Human rights weren't "invented" but have a long and honourable tradition.
About 61 years to be precise.
The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe.
They were invented and now, they've been perverted.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Oct 18, 2011 11:59:21 GMT -5
Human rights weren't "invented" but have a long and honourable tradition.About 61 years to be precise. The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe. They were invented and now, they've been perverted. exactly fret..invented and before that we in England lived with English law which gave us rights in law....rights brought about by our people for our people... but of course i have already said this and before human rights we were were not spied upon by cameras every where we went
|
|
|
Post by maggie on Oct 18, 2011 13:07:10 GMT -5
These families that the foreign criminals have are called "anchor" kids. The foreign criminals know what they've got to do to stay in the UK.
|
|
arizonavet
Journeyman
Protect the Innocent & Drink Belgian Ale
Posts: 351
|
Post by arizonavet on Oct 19, 2011 7:32:59 GMT -5
OK, I have an honest question.
What is the difference between human rights and laws based on the protection of the innocent?
In America, we not only have protections, voted on by all and passed by the majority of citizens...
but we have a Bill of Rights...which protects all citizens from the "tyrany of the majority"...
Could our Bill of Rights be interpreted as "human rights"?
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Oct 19, 2011 7:48:53 GMT -5
OK, I have an honest question. What is the difference between human rights and laws based on the protection of the innocent? In America, we not only have protections, voted on by all and passed by the majority of citizens... but we have a Bill of Rights...which protects all citizens from the "tyrany of the majority"... Could our Bill of Rights be interpreted as "human rights"? AV Human rights comes from this.... The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (commonly known as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)) is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe, the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953. All Council of Europe member states are party to the Convention and new members are expected to ratify the convention at the earliest opportunity. Its principle purpose is to protect the citizen against the state. The Convention established the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Any person who feels his or her rights have been violated under the Convention by a state party can take a case to the Court. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_RightsIts not like your bill of rights, although there are similarities.
|
|
arizonavet
Journeyman
Protect the Innocent & Drink Belgian Ale
Posts: 351
|
Post by arizonavet on Oct 19, 2011 12:47:30 GMT -5
OK, I have an honest question. What is the difference between human rights and laws based on the protection of the innocent? In America, we not only have protections, voted on by all and passed by the majority of citizens... but we have a Bill of Rights...which protects all citizens from the "tyranny of the majority"... Could our Bill of Rights be interpreted as "human rights"? AV Human rights comes from this.... The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (commonly known as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)) is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe, the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953. All Council of Europe member states are party to the Convention and new members are expected to ratify the convention at the earliest opportunity. Its principle purpose is to protect the citizen against the state. The Convention established the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Any person who feels his or her rights have been violated under the Convention by a state party can take a case to the Court. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_RightsIts not like your bill of rights, although there are similarities. Wow...sounds to me like giving away your sovereignty to people and countries that may have radically different ideas & morals. Be afraid...be very afraid.
|
|
|
Post by mouse on Oct 20, 2011 1:23:44 GMT -5
AV Human rights comes from this.... The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (commonly known as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)) is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe, the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953. All Council of Europe member states are party to the Convention and new members are expected to ratify the convention at the earliest opportunity. Its principle purpose is to protect the citizen against the state. The Convention established the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Any person who feels his or her rights have been violated under the Convention by a state party can take a case to the Court. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_RightsIts not like your bill of rights, although there are similarities. Wow...sounds to me like giving away your sovereignty to people and countries that may have radically different ideas & morals. Be afraid...be very afraid. exactly...and the judges come from places of enlightenment such as latvia..moldavia etc etc and yes we need to be very afaraid...many of these judges have no legal training and are political appointies and europe is awash with criminals...... imported criminals as if we didnt have enough european dross to contend with the interpretation of HR is way beyond rational bordering on insane in many of the judgements and how they come to the judgements is very very questionable
|
|
|
Post by fretslider on Oct 20, 2011 12:57:52 GMT -5
AV Human rights comes from this.... The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (commonly known as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)) is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe, the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953. All Council of Europe member states are party to the Convention and new members are expected to ratify the convention at the earliest opportunity. Its principle purpose is to protect the citizen against the state. The Convention established the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Any person who feels his or her rights have been violated under the Convention by a state party can take a case to the Court. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_RightsIts not like your bill of rights, although there are similarities. Wow...sounds to me like giving away your sovereignty to people and countries that may have radically different ideas & morals. Be afraid...be very afraid. It's all in the interpretation. This treaty was drawn up in the aftermath of the destruction of Europe and other parts of the Globe. Cast your mind back to the inhumanity that was expressed at that time and that is your context. Today things are very different, but the general principles of the treaty remain valid and pertinent. Its is the difference in context that influences the decisions. No ECHR in 1954 would deliver the judgements we see now. It was a different world.
|
|
ladylinda
Moderatorz
Poetry Editor
July 2011 Member of the Month, May 2014 Member of the Month
Posts: 4,901
|
Post by ladylinda on Oct 20, 2011 16:06:31 GMT -5
Funnily enough, Fret, I basically agree with what you've said.
|
|