algy Posted March 13, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2013 I agree to a point, however there are situations where it is beyond any doubt that someone is the killer, in those circumstances their life should be extinguished, take the animal who recently shot the two police women in Manchester, he does not deserve to live, how do you think the partners and families of those two girls feel knowing that the scum will eventually be released. My opinion of the Human Rights Act is that yes it is required but in a different format than it is at present, it needs to protect the basic rights of UK citizens and some basic aspects of prison life, at present convicted criminals have it too cushy, I have a friend who is in the prison service and for a few years now they are not allowed to wear peaked caps as it intimidates the inmates, have you ever heard so much crap in all your life. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 13, 2013 Report Share Posted March 13, 2013 Algy  I am against the death penalty, but the example you used is very hard to defend against. But on balance I still remain against, to me a sentence of death is just state sponsored murder, As a State we have to be better than those we condemn and judge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Tessla Posted March 13, 2013 Report Share Posted March 13, 2013 On the other hand i can't imagine Britons imprisoned abroad being given best steak & bangers & mash...if they don't like rice they starve & in a lot of countries they have to buy food when in jail. Â I would hope we would not have ambitions to join the worst of the countries in the world - we are better than that, surely? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted March 13, 2013 Report Share Posted March 13, 2013 It is a pity that Baz (unsurprisingly in his case) can't get over macho posturing when it comes to our rights (those that protect all of us - criminal or not) .  Macho posturing???? Someone has to counter your liberal softiness.... I have rights; yes I do and I have them because my forefathers fought for them and did not win them to have them abused by serial scumbags who are only there to play the system Some of those rights that Baz would see jettisoned  are;  Prohibition of torture - yes Baz I am against people being tortured - I suggest you may need therapy if you are in favour of being arbitrarily subjected to physical pain.  Prohibition of torture is also covered by the UKs ratification of the UN Convention Against Torture.... The right to a fair trial - so are you in favour of someone, once convicted of one offence, being automatically receiving additional prison sentences for any further alleged offences, without the convenience of being tried?  Fair trial guarantees are also enshrined in the Geneva Convention on the right to a fair trial which the UK is a signatory of.... if you are accused of further crimes whilst in prison, this would cover that worry you have Freedom of thought, religion and belief - for example authorities forbidding a Muslim to perform his prayers or having the choice to eat food against his belief or starve.  The freedom of religious beliefs and freedoms are all covered under UN charters; to which the UK has signed up for.... Lack of discrimination - is it okay for individuals to be singled out for special treatment (perhaps even the torture that you are appear to be in favour of)_ based on their race or because their Islamic or Jewish faith ?  No discrimination  As above, discrimination is outlawed under international conventions signed and ratified by the UK.....  The simple fact is that the European court is used by criminals and terrorists to try and get off with their crimes.... International law (which doesn't have a court or a million lawyers prepared to take on the cases of these criminals) covers all of the important items that Nick seems to think we will lose if we ditch the ECHR.... just not so  and finally for now.....  The case of the assylum seeker who killed a young girl while he was driving illegally and he successfully used the ECHR to argue that he should be allowed to stay in this country because he has a young family.... the family of the girl he killed had no rights.... which I am sure you will think is absolutely fine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted March 13, 2013 Report Share Posted March 13, 2013 I agree to a point, however there are situations where it is beyond any doubt that someone is the killer, in those circumstances their life should be extinguished, take the animal who recently shot the two police women in Manchester, he does not deserve to live, how do you think the partners and families of those two girls feel knowing that the scum will eventually be released. My opinion of the Human Rights Act is that yes it is required but in a different format than it is at present, it needs to protect the basic rights of UK citizens and some basic aspects of prison life, at present convicted criminals have it too cushy, I have a friend who is in the prison service and for a few years now they are not allowed to wear peaked caps as it intimidates the inmates, have you ever heard so much crap in all your life. Â Nick and his liberal softies would no doubt have your mate calling the inmates "Sir" and folding down their beds at night.... the simple fact Algy is that most if not all of our basic rights are covered by international treaties and charters and the ECHR is purely a way of highly paid (by legal aid usually) lawyers to get criminals off with crimes they have comitted or to give criminals rights that in may cases they themselves have denied to their victims Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 13, 2013 Report Share Posted March 13, 2013 Any Country should have the right to deport undisirables to their country of origin - regardless of claims of torture or the death penalty. If these are issues, they should be taken up by the international community with those countries that practise them. As for arguements about descending to the level of Belarus or Russia - well, didn't the USA (our number one friend and ally!), pursue a policy of kidnapping suspected terrorists around the world, then taking them to countries that practised torture for interrogation (with the alleged support of the UK secret service), prior to dumping them in Quantanamo for further abuse? And the USA has a special extradition treaty with the UK, which is used to extradite UK citizens. So another fine hypocritical mess the luvvies have dropped us in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Tessla Posted March 13, 2013 Report Share Posted March 13, 2013 Macho posturing???? Someone has to counter your liberal softiness.... I have rights; yes I do and I have them because my forefathers fought for them and did not win them to have them abused by serial scumbags who are only there to play the system Prohibition of torture is also covered by the UKs ratification of the UN Convention Against Torture....  Fair trial guarantees are also enshrined in the Geneva Convention on the right to a fair trial which the UK is a signatory of.... if you are accused of further crimes whilst in prison, this would cover that worry you have  The freedom of religious beliefs and freedoms are all covered under UN charters; to which the UK has signed up for....  As above, discrimination is outlawed under international conventions signed and ratified by the UK.....  The simple fact is that the European court is used by criminals and terrorists to try and get off with their crimes.... International law (which doesn't have a court or a million lawyers prepared to take on the cases of these criminals) covers all of the important items that Nick seems to think we will lose if we ditch the ECHR.... just not so  and finally for now.....  The case of the assylum seeker who killed a young girl while he was driving illegally and he successfully used the ECHR to argue that he should be allowed to stay in this country because he has a young family.... the family of the girl he killed had no rights.... which I am sure you will think is absolutely fine?  Clearly the red mist came down and you could not remember , or even read, what you posted, in at LEAST two separate postings - that criminals should have NO rights - not just those under the Human Rights Act /ECHR .  No I do not think that the decision you singled out is fine, obviously.  The way you thrash out verbally makes we wonder if you are like this in general life and, if so, how you yourself have avoided falling foul of the law (assuming you have avoided doing so). There are plenty of people in prison because they have reacted badly to a perceived wrong being done to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nick Tessla Posted March 13, 2013 Report Share Posted March 13, 2013 Nick and his liberal softies would no doubt have your mate calling the inmates "Sir" and folding down their beds at night.... Â Â No, I just don't think the inmates should be raped, assaulted, religiously persecuted, etc. with no comeback - as you have implied you believe.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 13, 2013 Report Share Posted March 13, 2013 There are plenty of wannabe terrorists who react badly to living in a secular democracy like the UK, and plot to blow up it's citizens - but when finally caught, fight tooth and nail to stay in the very country they purport to hate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davy51 Posted March 13, 2013 Report Share Posted March 13, 2013 Nick and his liberal softies would no doubt have your mate calling the inmates "Sir" and folding down their beds at night.... the simple fact Algy is that most if not all of our basic rights are covered by international treaties and charters and the ECHR is purely a way of highly paid (by legal aid usually) lawyers to get criminals off with crimes they have comitted or to give criminals rights that in may cases they themselves have denied to their victims  From what i hear from a prisoner officer friend inmates now have to be addressed as  Mr. ......... ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
algy Posted March 13, 2013 Author Report Share Posted March 13, 2013 Well! I started the topic with this:- Â Â It didn't take too long to achieve this, did it. Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted March 13, 2013 Report Share Posted March 13, 2013 Clearly the red mist came down and you could not remember , or even read, what you posted, in at LEAST two separate postings - that criminals should have NO rights - not just those under the Human Rights Act /ECHR . No I do not think that the decision you singled out is fine, obviously.  The way you thrash out verbally makes we wonder if you are like this in general life and, if so, how you yourself have avoided falling foul of the law (assuming you have avoided doing so). There are plenty of people in prison because they have reacted badly to a perceived wrong being done to them.  Look Nick.... you are just being pedantic now.....criminals should not be afforded the general rights that a free person should have is what I am saying of course they should not be tortured etc... but they should still be slopping out and they should not under any circumstances have access to news media, TV's or any other luxuries.... Someone on trial is NOT a criminal until sentenced....... and to quote your phrase OBVIOUSLY.... but we have no need for the criminals charter which is the ECHR as all of the basic rights you softies so strangely wish to afford to the scum of the earth are covered under various international treaties that the UK are already signed up to so no need to get your toga in a twizzle  You do make some general assumptions about my character etc.... obviously it is none of your business, but just to reassure you I have served my time for hunting down and killing the last person that insulted me on a forum; and that sort of behaviour is all in my past now..... or at least I hope it is...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 13, 2013 Report Share Posted March 13, 2013 Obs, it is not the ECHR, tat is stopping him being deported!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 13, 2013 Report Share Posted March 13, 2013 It was their decision that put the rag in the cogs. Look, it simples:- if someone foreign commits a crime in this country, I can't see why they assume "rights" one would expect of a citizen of this country. They should be simply returned to the land of their birth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 13, 2013 Report Share Posted March 13, 2013 Not them now though is it. So why are you not complaining about who it is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 13, 2013 Report Share Posted March 13, 2013 "Not them now is it" - what kind of response is that? If it wasn't for the ECHR appeal decision he'd be back in Jordan by now, presumably with his family, making a rather large house available for a British family and making a saving for the tax-payer on benefits and legal aid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 13, 2013 Report Share Posted March 13, 2013 Who is it now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 Think you've lost it - again ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 Not at all Obs, it's Siac, which is a Btitsh Agency is it not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 14, 2013 Report Share Posted March 14, 2013 SIAC, wasn't involved in the original appeal decision, which put the rag in the cogs; it was the ECHR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 15, 2013 Report Share Posted March 15, 2013 Who's to say they would not have done Obs, they had no need when the ECHR were involved. It's them now, but no mud throwing from you, odd!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 15, 2013 Report Share Posted March 15, 2013 ECHR put the brakes on the process - end of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 15, 2013 Report Share Posted March 15, 2013 So you are not disagreeing with me then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 15, 2013 Report Share Posted March 15, 2013 What stops the car - the foot or the hand brake? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted March 15, 2013 Report Share Posted March 15, 2013 The car in front. 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.