Bazj Posted October 8, 2011 Report Share Posted October 8, 2011 As the title says..... The home secretary has recently spouted a lot of good ideas with regards to this criminals charter.... but are there any instances where it has been used by a victim against a criminal or any other examples where someone has used the HR act for none criminal gain? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cleopatra Posted October 8, 2011 Report Share Posted October 8, 2011 I think there has Baz, but i don't recall the details. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 8, 2011 Report Share Posted October 8, 2011 Mrs Bliar may know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 9, 2011 Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 Which part do you have a problem with Baz Here it is - Article 2: Right to life - Article 3: Prohibition of torture - Article 4: Prohibition of slavery and forced labour - Article 5: Right to liberty and security - Article 6: Right to a fair trial - Article 7: No punishment without law - Article 8: Right to respect for private and family life - Article 9: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion - Article 10: Freedom of expression - Article 11: Freedom of assembly and association - Article 12: Right to marry - Article 14: Prohibition of discrimination - Protocol No. 1 - Article 1 : Protection of property - Article 2 : Right to education - Article 3 : Right to free elections - Protocol No. 6 - Article 1 : Abolition of the death penalty - Article 2 : Death penalty in time of war There is nothing contentious in the Act, however all the Act does is enshrine the European Convention on Human Rights into English law, the purpose being to prevent the need for people to take the UK to the European Court of Human Rights, by making sure our law complies with the Convention anyway. The Tories say they plan to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998, but we would still be a signatory to the Convention (since 1950), and so effectively this will still be part of our law. btw, the Convention of Human Rights is NOTHING to do with the EU, and we signed it (indeed we drafted it) almost 25 years BEFORE we joined the EU/EEC. The Convention is the work of the Council of Europe, an institution which is NOT connected with the EU. Many countries are members of the council, without being a member of the EU. It should also not be confused with the UN document, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Also, no claimant can take a signatory nation to the European Court of Human Rights until all legal options in that country have been exhausted. To the UK this means that a claimant must go all the way to Supreme Court, or previously the House of Lords, to seek a ruling which complies with the Conventions, before he can ask the ECHR for a decision. A decision from the ECHR means that the member state must change its national law to comply with the ruling, and the ruling applies to all members. Just a bit of info to mull over aswell Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 Which part do you have a problem with Baz - Article 2: Right to life - (all well and good unless you have taken someones life in an act of murder ) - Article 3: Prohibition of torture - Article 4: Prohibition of slavery and forced labour - Article 5: Right to liberty and security..... liberty is fine (unless you are a criminal) - Article 6: Right to a fair trial - Article 7: No punishment without law (Depends if the law is an ass or not - unfortunately time and time again in the UK, we see that it is....) - Article 8: Right to respect for private and family life (providing you have not done any criminal act which takes that right from someone else...ie. murder etc.) - Article 9: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion - Article 10: Freedom of expression - Article 11: Freedom of assembly and association - Article 12: Right to marry (except for convenience purposes in order to fight extradition) - Article 14: Prohibition of discrimination - Protocol No. 1 - Article 1 : Protection of property (this is good because a homeowner can now give out justice to burglars....) - Article 2 : Right to education (Most teenagers don't seem to want to take this one up unfortunately) - Article 3 : Right to free elections (Is there ever such a thing?) - Protocol No. 6 - Article 1 : Abolition of the death penalty (And we wonder why the crime rate continues to soar???) - Article 2 : Death penalty in time of war There is nothing contentious in the Act, however all the Act does is enshrine the European Convention on Human Rights into English law, the purpose being to prevent the need for people to take the UK to the European Court of Human Rights, by making sure our law complies with the Convention anyway. The Tories say they plan to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998, but we would still be a signatory to the Convention (since 1950), and so effectively this will still be part of our law. btw, the Convention of Human Rights is NOTHING to do with the EU, and we signed it (indeed we drafted it) almost 25 years BEFORE we joined the EU/EEC. The Convention is the work of the Council of Europe, an institution which is NOT connected with the EU. Many countries are members of the council, without being a member of the EU. It should also not be confused with the UN document, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Also, no claimant can take a signatory nation to the European Court of Human Rights until all legal options in that country have been exhausted. To the UK this means that a claimant must go all the way to Supreme Court, or previously the House of Lords, to seek a ruling which complies with the Conventions, before he can ask the ECHR for a decision. A decision from the ECHR means that the member state must change its national law to comply with the ruling, and the ruling applies to all members. Just a bit of info to mull over aswell OK....now that I have mulled over the stuff you have written....would you care to answer the original question? Has anyone who isn't a criminal ever used the human rights act? Or are you strugging to find anyone too Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 9, 2011 Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 Found this from 2007 http://www.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk/about-us/press-releases/110308.pdf As I listed the act Baz, what parts do you not like or do you have problems with Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted October 9, 2011 Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 Here's another, it's not that hard: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-416785/Care-workers-win-human-rights-test-case.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 As I listed the act Baz, what parts do you not like or do you have problems with I answered in the quote box in the previous post.... So we have found 1 case from 2007 and 1 case from 2006..... now how many do you suppose there are examples of criminals using the act?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 9, 2011 Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 Take a look at my link Baz So you against freedom of thought, something you take for granted, and put to use every time you post on here, yet you would deny it to others Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fugtifino Posted October 9, 2011 Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 Well, if you want something more current, here's a short list of scheduled hearings: http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/EN/Header/Pending+Cases/Pending+cases/Calendar+of+scheduled+hearings/ If anyone can be bothered to research the details of the cases, it might demonstrate something. Or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 Take a look at my link Baz So you against freedom of thought, something you take for granted, and put to use every time you post on here, yet you would deny it to others No I crossed out the ones that were acceptable! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 9, 2011 Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 The act can be used in UK courts fug, I think thats what Baz is after. How often it is used in the UK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 Look.... the human rights act per-say is not a bad thing. What is bad is the way it is used in cases like asylum seekers claiming right to family life breaches when they have taken the life of someone and should not be afforded the same priviliges as the poor soul they killed or their family. By committing a criminal act, the criminal should not be allowed to make costly claims against the state for instance, using the human rights act..... it is not known as the "criminals charter" for nothing now is it?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 9, 2011 Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 Their is nothing wrong with the act, it is just they way it is interpreted in the UK that is the problem. Other countries don't seem to have a problem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 9, 2011 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 Then maybe we have a problem with affording human rights to criminals and convicts...... if that was done away with, it would be a good start. We should also do away with these no win no fee ambulance chasing lawyers that are always milking the system. Then all we need to do is bring in some proper immigratuion controls and then bring back the death penalty and we might have a better place to live! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 9, 2011 Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 Baz on no win no fee I complete agree, the only people who win are the solicitors, and everyone else gets hammered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted October 9, 2011 Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 Having ignored ALL the above posts, WHY does anyone need rights if they live within the laws of this country??? SIMPLES. End of. :roll: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 9, 2011 Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 Laws tell you what you can not do, not what you can do, And with no written constitution you have to test the law to get rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 9, 2011 Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 Unless you live in France of course (and other countries that use the Napoleonic code) where the law does say what you are allowed to do :wink: :wink:Lets have more €urope shall we :wink: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted October 9, 2011 Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 Laws tell you what you can not do, WHAT MORE DO YOU NEED?????? :roll: :roll: :roll: :roll: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 9, 2011 Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 France has a written constitution Asp, which likes America's gives people rights. Do you not have rights under the Irish constitution Asp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asperity Posted October 9, 2011 Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 As usual you haven't bothered to actually read what I said.I was pointing out that under the Napoleonic code the state tells the citizen what they ARE allowed to do rather than as in Britain, Ireland and the USA the state tells the citizen what they are NOT allowed to do. Understand? :roll: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 9, 2011 Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 Having viewed the "articles" - some arguably contradict others. EG: Freedom of expression, would allow one to say anything, which isn't quite the case in our PC world. :unsure: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 9, 2011 Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 You could always take your case to court Obs, and use the Act as your defence Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 9, 2011 Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 There was a right wing Danish MEP, who was prosecuted under their "Hate Laws"; I don't think he got anywhere with the "freedom of expression" arguement. :unsure: 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.