Peter T Posted March 7, 2010 Report Share Posted March 7, 2010 Kije, what Baz said. Sha, It should be suspended until as such time that the Chief Justice understands what it means and issues that information to the rest of the legal system and police force. For years, everytime the Gov. tried to do something about law and order, they got kicked back by the Lord Chief Justice. Perhaps if they all sat down around a table and analysed the problem, maybe, just maybe, they might come up with workable solutions that would be enforcable by the law and the police, and that would protect the public rather than the criminal and those who would flout the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted March 7, 2010 Report Share Posted March 7, 2010 Sha, I agree with what you have said about misinterpretation, however if the act allows it, it cannot just from now on be ignored. Without rewriting the act, a judge can't have said to one criminal 6 months ago, "yes your human rights were breached when they set the minimum tarrif" and then say to another criminal tomorrow, "sorry your human rights may have been breached, but because you are a criminal we won't do anything about it"..... the bloody lawyers and compensation merchants would have a field day! It has to be suspended and a new act drawn up which doesn't have any such anomolies..... however, if they got rid of it altogether and relied on the laws we already have in this country it would also work just as well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 7, 2010 Report Share Posted March 7, 2010 The human rights act does not seem to have the same problems in other Countries perhaps the mantra should be "Education Education Education" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 7, 2010 Report Share Posted March 7, 2010 With you Baz, all the way, on this one - perhaps we could help them re-write it?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 7, 2010 Report Share Posted March 7, 2010 Ok Lets try to get specific, What part of the act don't you like Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 7, 2010 Report Share Posted March 7, 2010 Let's try for starters: that a CONVICTED fellon loses all "rights" under the Act; that a person in the act of commiting a crime (EG entering a property for the purpose of commiting a criminal act) loses all protection under the Act. Any person illegally entering the Country loses any protection afforded by the Act. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted March 7, 2010 Report Share Posted March 7, 2010 Ok Lets try to get specific, What part of the act don't you like Or maybe I could ask you, the benefits that you think that the Act has brought to society in general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 7, 2010 Report Share Posted March 7, 2010 Why does the act seem to work in other Countries but not here, Perhaps they interpret the act differently, So without changing the act which I do not thing you have read you might be able to get your way. As A buy the way, If you get your way and a convicted fellon looses his rights when should they be given them back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted March 7, 2010 Report Share Posted March 7, 2010 If you get your way and a convicted fellon looses his rights when should they be given them back duh.... when he is no longer a convicted fellon perhaps? Maybe after serving his WHOLE sentence and not some watered down "we haven't got enough prison places so lets let them out early" Nu Labour type sentence! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 7, 2010 Report Share Posted March 7, 2010 Jon Venables had completed his sentence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted March 7, 2010 Report Share Posted March 7, 2010 Jon Venables was released under licence on a whole life tarriff. He hadn't completed his sentence at all and, as is the case, has been recalled to serve the remainder of the original life sentence if he is guilty of whatever it is they have dragged him in for. Hopefully he is and hopefully he will serve the remainder of his life sentence. I doubt any Home Secretary will ever release him..... unless of course he contests it under the...... Human Rights act of course!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 7, 2010 Report Share Posted March 7, 2010 Might be wrong but aren't all people released on licence Baz, to take the point further about people protecting their land what happens if the land or property they say they are protecting is in dispute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.