observer Posted March 2, 2010 Report Share Posted March 2, 2010 Hang on girl: if we have secular schools NO RELIGIOUS nonesense would be taught - that can be left to Sunday schools. As for sex education - that can be dealt with factually under biology and health issues - morality can stay with the parents or again Sunday school. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LymmParent Posted March 3, 2010 Report Share Posted March 3, 2010 Oooooh! Call me "girl" again...... Religious education has to be taught - it's ignorance that gives rise to fear and hate. If everyone made a bit of effort to understand everyone else, the world would be a slightly nicer place for a lot of people. I'm with you from a personal perspective - if we could remove all religions from the mix, it'd save a lot of fighting BUT there's no way to do that now, because freedom to practice your choice of faith is a cornerstone of civilised society. So we have to make the best of it all and live and let live. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted March 3, 2010 Report Share Posted March 3, 2010 News today reported that a Muslim woman was stopped from boarding her flight at Manchester because she refused to go through the new body scanner because of religious reasons. Her friend (also female) also left the airport after she wouldn't go the scanner either because of "medical reasons" ...she apparently had an infection ? Maybe they were just testing the system Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted March 3, 2010 Report Share Posted March 3, 2010 you are probably right Dis; testing the system. Should have been dragged into a room, strip searched and then kicked out on the next one way plane to Pakistan just in case. Soft on terrorism, soft on the muslims that cause terrorism Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted March 3, 2010 Report Share Posted March 3, 2010 I think refusing them access to board their flight and showing that the rules are in place and no scan=no fly is enough Baz If they were testing the system (or not) and were dragged into a room, strip searched and sent on a one way flight to Pakistan then the Human Rights brigade would really get a strop on and before you knew it the scanners would be banned Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted March 3, 2010 Report Share Posted March 3, 2010 The human rights brigade are already on the case and are already claimning that they are illegal under european law so watch this space! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Posted March 3, 2010 Report Share Posted March 3, 2010 Her friend (also female) also left the airport after she wouldn't go the scanner either because of "medical reasons" The medical reason was probably because she was a bloke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted March 3, 2010 Report Share Posted March 3, 2010 Yep but blowing up, killing, maiming or putting the lives of innocent people at risk by not putting in safeguards to stop such atrocities happening is surely more illegal so the human rights brigade should be told in whatever language they understand to sod off Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 3, 2010 Report Share Posted March 3, 2010 Here's one for the HR lawyers to ponder on: who's human rights take priority - the many or the few? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil Sid Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 the one and usually the one who complains to the human rights mob that their rights are being infringed. perhaps we should all complain to the human rights brigade about our rights. mind you that would probably infringe their human rights Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 Perhaps a ban on wearing pyjama type clothing in "enclosed public spaces"?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 The human rights brigade are already on the case and are already claimning that they are illegal under european law so watch this space! No, that's not correct. The 'Human Rights Brigade' as you refer to them, are saying that there is a danger that there could be allegations of discrimination due to selective scanning. If everyone is scanned there is no case for discrimination. Ob's asks "Here's one for the HR lawyers to ponder on: who's human rights take priority - the many or the few?" Sid anwers "the one" Actually as the law stands, you cannot use the Human Rights Act to grant/enforce a human right if in doing so you infringe the human rights of another/ others. But,...... and here is where the problem lies, most usually it seems when it comes to HR lawyers and who's human rights take priority, it is 'he who is paying the highest fees'. (and ironically, this quite often is the public, through the legal aid system!) The problem I think is that there are few, (if any) lawyers highly trained to deal with cases re the human rights act, and those that are best trained and able, are fighting the case from one particular point of view....because that's where the money is! There is nothing wrong with the Human Rights Act, what is wrong is that it is not being enforced correctly! . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 I beg to differ Sha, there's quite a lot wrong with "the Human Rights" Act: 1) as you correctly complain, it's a licence to print (our) money in legal aid by the HR defenders. 2) it attacks a pragmatic response to serious situations (EG scanners), via spurious and pathetic arguements thrown up by archaic religious practises. 3) it applies itself to those who wish to or activily engage in walking all over the human rights of others (EG the right not to be burgled or mugged); and dwells on the human rights of those convicted of denying to others a sacred human right (the right to life), by pandering to their every whinge once they're imprisoned. 4) it's then abused further by pandering to so-called injustices to those who commit an illegal act by entering this country (illegally), then as an aferthought (when caught), plead for assylum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 5, 2010 Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 I agree there is nothing wrong with the Human Rights Act it applies itself to those who wish to or activily engage in walking all over the human rights of others Complete propaganda Obs, Perhaps you could point me to the part of the act where it says this and dwells on the human rights of those convicted of denying to others a sacred human right Again direct me to the part of the act this comes from:wink: The act gives equality to all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 Oh no it doesn't; kill a burglar in your own home, or a mugger in the street, and you'll find out - in practise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 Then show me the part of the act, It will prove your point Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 A gun is just a piece of metal, until someone picks it up - likewise the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 The human rights act is a joke. It is used by criminals and clever lawyers to further the ends of criminals and does nothing to protect the human rights of law abiding citizens. Take a murderer. When he kills someone, the victim then ceases to have human rights because he is dead; the murderer however is still alive and in this topsy-turvy world he is deemed to have human rights. You can't argue that Kije, that is a fact. Many top cops and defence lawyers despair at this unjust act because it is not used by "normal" people and only ever seems to get mentioned when being used by criminals to get better treatment Have a read of some of the following uses of the beloved act and see if you still think it isn't a bag of toss then.... Detective Chief Superintendent Chris Gregg said since its introduction in 1998 hardened criminals had effectively used the legislation to hide from the law. He described its abuse as "callous, heartless and deeply offensive" and called for new measures to prevent it from continuing. "As a police officer one of the most frustrating things is when killers, who have shown not one ounce of compassion for their fellow human beings, start trying to have the shield of human rights drawn around them," he said. "For hardened criminals to try to use this legislation as protection causes terrible offence to the families of victims who have suffered appalling and cruel deaths at the hands of those who are quick to talk about human rights but were so swift to take away the human rights of others. fanatical cleric Abu Qatada, one of the world's most dangerous terror suspects, successfully fought extradition to Jordan where he is wanted on suspicion of plotting terrorist atrocities after his lawyers relied on the human rights act. The Appeal Court said that even though the Home Office had an agreement Qatada himself would not be harmed some of the evidence used against him may have been obtained by torture. Qatada, described as Osama bin Laden's ambassador in Europe, has since been granted bail in the UK under a 22-hour curfew expected to cost the taxpayer ?500,000 a year. Former US Marine, David Bieber, who murdered traffic officer Ian Broadhurst and tried to shoot two of his colleagues in Leeds on Boxing Day in 2003. In 2008, his lawyers argued that his full life sentence breached his human rights. The High Court ruled that a group of Afghans who hijacked a plane at gunpoint in 2000 and forced it to fly to Britain should have been granted asylum. The government had originally denied the nine hijackers - who claimed to be fleeing the Taliban - the right to remain in Britain. But last year, a judge ruled that ministers breached the group's human rights when they refused to grant them full refugee status. The authorities were criticized for putting the human rights of rapist Anthony Rice before public safety when they released him after he had served 16 years of a life sentence. Rice, 48, was freed nine months before he stabbed 40-year-old Naomi Bryant to death in her home in Winchester. Last summer, an alleged car thief climbed onto a roof to try to escape police. Officers surrounded the building and after a ten-hour siege, the man asked for food and drink, which were supplied in the form of KFC and Pepsi. The man was later persuaded to give himself up, but Gloucestershire police faced criticism after an officer reportedly said they had to "look after his wellbeing and human rights." The force later denied human rights were involved and said the take-away delivery was part of their negotiation tactics Egyptian terror suspect Hani al-Sibai has been granted temporary permission to live in the UK, despite publicly praising the insurgents who are battling British troops Iraq and Afghanistan. He, his wife and five children remain their ?600,000 housing association home in west London because human rights laws make it impossible for suspects to be returned to countries where they might be tortured or killed. Britain has been unable to obtain from Egypt the necessary assurances as to al-Sibai's welfare. David Coleman, chief constable of Derbyshire police refused to release pictures of two escaped murderers amid fears it might breach their human rights.Chief Constable Coleman claimed Jason Croft and Michael Nixon posed 'no risk' to locals, while the force said it had to consider the Human Rights Act and data protection laws when asked to publish 'wanted' photographs of the two men. This 'disastrous' charter/ruling was never meant to be abused in the way it is nowadays - it was supposed to give a fairer understanding/ruling for the public on all sensible issues - but because of the mismanagement and totally 'misunderstood interpretation of the whole charter' its now become a 'rope around' every sensible persons neck.!! The only way forward is too 'end the whole system' and end it now - it is of no use too the majority of the public - only for those types of people who abuse all and anything and they being 'supported' by these HR groups! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dizzy Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 Good post Baz. It would be interesting to know how many law abiding citizens have ever needed to use the 'Human Rights Act' as it only ever seems to be cited for those who have committed a crime etc when they need a get out clause Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 Article 2: Right to Life (1) Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which the penalty is provided by law. (2) Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary- (a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence; ( in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained; © in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection. Return to top Article 3: Inhuman treatment No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Return to top Article 4: Slavery (1) No one shall be held in slavery or servitude. (2) No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour. (3) For the purpose of this Article the term "forced or compulsory labour" shall not include: (a) any work required to be done in the ordinary course of detention imposed in accordance to the provisions of Article 5 of this Convention or during conditional release from such detention; ( any service of a military character or, in the case of conscientious objectors in countries where they are recognised, service exacted instead of compulsory military service; © any service exacted in case of an emergency or calamity threatening the life or well-being of the community; (d) any work or service which forms part of normal civic obligations. Return to top Article 5: Right to Liberty (1) Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: (a) the lawful detention of a person after conviction by a competent court; ( the lawful arrest or detention of a person for non-compliance with the lawful order of a court or in order to secure the fulfilment of any obligation prescribed by law; © the lawful arrest or detention of a person effected for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority on reasonable suspicion of having committed an offence or when it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent his committing an offence or fleeing after having done so; (d) the detention of a minor by lawful order for the purpose of educational supervision or his lawful detention for the purpose of bringing him before the competent legal authority; (e) the lawful detention of persons for the prevention of the spreading of infectious diseases, of persons of unsound mind, alcoholics and drug addicts or vagrants; (f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition. (2) Everyone who is arrested shall be informed promptly, in a language which he understands, of the reason for his arrest and of any charge against him. (3) Everyone arrested or detained in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1© of this Article shall be brought promptly before a judge or other officer authorised by law to exercise judicial power and shall be entitled to trial within a reasonable time or to release pending trial. Release may be conditioned by guarantees to appear for trial. (4) Everyone who is deprived of his liberty by arrest or detention shall be entitled to take proceedings by which the lawfulness of his detention shall be decided speedily by a court and his release ordered if the detention is not lawful. (5) Everyone who has been the victim of arrest or detention in contravention of the provisions of this Article shall have an enforceable right to compensation. Return to top Article 6: Right to a fair trial (1) In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice. (2) Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law. (3) Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights - (a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him; ( to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence; © to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require; (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him; (e) to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court. Return to top Article 7: Retrospective crimes (1) No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed. (2) This Article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time it was committed, was criminal according to the general law recognised by civilised nations. Return to top Article 8: Right to privacy (1) Everyone has the right for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. (2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Return to top Article 9: Freedom of conscience (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. (2) Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Return to top Article 10: Freedom of Expression (1) Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. (2) The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. Return to top Article 11: Freedom of Assembly (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests. (2) No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. This Article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces, of the police or of the administration of the state. Return to top Article 12: Marriage and the family Men and women of marriageable age shall have the right to marry and to found a family, according to national laws governing the exercise of this right. Return to top Article 14: Discrimination The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status. Return to top Protocol No 1 Article 1 Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of the State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties. Article 2 No person shall be denied a right to an education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions. Article 3 The High Contracting Parties undertake to hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature. Now what do you not like, Most peoples problem with the act is the way it is interpreted, I find nothing in the act that I dislike, Most of the crap about the act comes from the Murdock press thowing mud and people reading and beleiving it without actually knowing the act themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 And there's me thinking it was the legal side's interpretation and application that made it bad for us citizens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 Kije, what you and your lilly livered sandal and toga wearing mates never acknowledge is that most of the above was already available under laws prior to this nonsense coming in. The first statement is a complete nonsense.... "Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law" Except that when that person is murdered, their right to life ceses as does the right to protect it by law. The law however still applies to the person who has taken the life and their life is protected by law...... what utter tosh it is all geared to make life easy for criminals..... Article 3: Inhuman treatment No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. i.e. the criminal can complain about the severity of their sentence (see my example above) Article 8: Right to privacy (1) Everyone has the right for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. (2) There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. (1) Unless you get burgled, but then the burglar has human rights too?? (2) Unless you are a snooping council whicjh fits bin monitoring devices, covertly in your wheelie bins? Article 10: Freedom of Expression (1) Everyone has the right of freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without inference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. Unless of course you are a card carrying member of the Labour Party, in your 70's and decide to heckle a cabinet minister at the Labour Party Conference; in which case you are forcibly ejected by 4 burly security guards and then detained by the police under anti-terrorism legislation as happened last year? Laws have been passed in this country for hundreds of years for the benefit of the population without all this claptrap from the Euro dictatorship All that has happened is that now the criminals have an avenue to take the pi$$ big time and they exploit it to every degree they can Previously they would have got short shift and told to take a hike, now they have the law behind them Show me some examples of where the human rights act has helped "normal" "law abiding" citizens where they wouldn't have been helped under the previous laws? The problem is Kije, everyone has these "rights" but no one can have them taken away by means of infringing the rights of others. If it had a priviso that if you take anothers possessions, you forfeit the right to have your sentence reduced if you complain, I may take it a bit more seriously, but the only people who benefit are criminals and their lawyers and the likes of that stupid woman Shami Chakrabati..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 So Peter are you just going to throw mud, or are you going to tell us what part of the act you have a problem with Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted March 7, 2010 Report Share Posted March 7, 2010 Heres one I'm waiting for: assuming it's proved in an international court, that the Iraq invasion WAS illegal; then it would be open to every Iraqi who lossed a relative to sue the US and UK (or Bliar and Bush) under the HR act! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha Posted March 7, 2010 Report Share Posted March 7, 2010 As you say yourself Baz the Human Rights Act...... ..............was never meant to be abused in the way it is nowadays - it was supposed to give a fairer understanding/ruling for the public on all sensible issues - but because of the mismanagement and totally 'misunderstood interpretation of the whole charter' its now become a 'rope around' every sensible persons neck.!! Baz, I agree with you in that the examples you give do not reflect anything like what I would class as justice, but these cases are largely due to the misinterpretation/mismanagement of the act rather than the actual content. However, I don't agree that 'ending the whole system' is the way forward. Merely ensuring it is used correctly would do for a start. Some clarification and yes, some changes would also help. I was recently reading some case histories and noticed that a more 'common sense' approach to interpretation seemed to be emerging. This doesn't yet seem to have filtered through to those on the front line in a greatly noticable way yet but it will. At present, the act is too often misinterpreted. Take for example, some of the ways it is interpreted by the police, Say a person is threatened by violence, asks the police to intervene by banning the violent one from a certain area, the police would probably refuse citing the HR rights of the attacker. This is in fact an abuse of the HR act, but because of their lack of knowledge and the more likely possibility of those committing the crimes rather than the victims throwing the HR act at them, the victim's pleas will probably get ignored. If the police were better trained this and many other types of misinterpretations wouldn't happen. 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.