Human Rights Act myths

Irn Bru wrote:Appears some people don't understand this and the fact that the UK is also a signatory under the ECHR and international human rights law and the United Nations charter of which we are a  permanent members of the Security Council,and a founder member. Leaving the ECHR would also mean having to withdraw from these organisations and the roles we play meaning our country would be isolated and marginalised in the civilized world.

People should be careful what they wish for.

The myths

https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/human-rights-act-myths

Irn Bru wrote:Appears some people don't understand this and the fact that the UK is also a signatory under the ECHR and international human rights law and the United Nations charter of which we are a  permanent members of the Security Council,and a founder member. Leaving the ECHR would also mean having to withdraw from these organisations and the roles we play meaning our country would be isolated and marginalised in the civilized world.

People should be careful what they wish for.

The myths

https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/human-rights-act-myths

nicko wrote:Churchill did support Human Rights,  but not as they are now!

darknessss wrote:What part of

The human UDHR made in 1948 was sufficient and required little changing....why has it grown into the moster it is?

can you not comprehend

and go on then ...why SHOULD prisoners be able to vote....give me ONE good reason....

IMPRISONMENT is "social isolation" as punishment and protection for the public


if you are temporarily at least "banned from " society...why should you be able to partake of its benefits???

Ben_Reilly wrote:

darknessss wrote:What part of

The human UDHR made in 1948 was sufficient and required little changing....why has it grown into the moster it is?

can you not comprehend

The word (?) "moster"

and go on then ...why SHOULD prisoners be able to vote....give me ONE good reason....

IMPRISONMENT is "social isolation" as punishment and protection for the public


if you are temporarily at least "banned from " society...why should you be able to partake of its benefits???

Voting isn't a benefit, it's a right that probably should not be taken away from anyone but a violent criminal. And I doubt you need to worry about its practical effect on elections -- at least not until someone forms the Abolish All Laws And Let All the Prisoners Go Party (AALALAPGP)

Brasidas wrote:Hi Victor by the way, good to see you back.

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Hi Victor by the way, good to see you back.

really?

darknessss wrote:so make up your mind

am i

A) smelly

B)victor
OR

C) ?????

Ben_Reilly wrote:Punishment is a deterrent to crime since when?

People who commit crimes generally either think they'll be part of the majority of criminals who go unpunished: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9415793/Police-fail-to-solve-three-in-four-crimes.html

... or they simply don't think that far ahead, committing the crime because they see no other option.

The idea of a person saying, "Damn, I'd love to boost that car but then I'd probably be caught and sent to prison" is kind of laughable, if you think about it.

darknessss wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Punishment is a deterrent to crime since when?

People who commit crimes generally either think they'll be part of the majority of criminals who go unpunished: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9415793/Police-fail-to-solve-three-in-four-crimes.html

... or they simply don't think that far ahead, committing the crime because they see no other option.

The idea of a person saying, "Damn, I'd love to boost that car but then I'd probably be caught and sent to prison" is kind of laughable, if you think about it.

maybe for a "first offender", but if prison was sufficiently a place of despairing and unremitting horror (immagine something suitably Dantean) there might be a considerable reduction in the number of repeat offenders...

veya_victaous wrote:

darknessss wrote:

maybe for a "first offender", but if prison was sufficiently a place of despairing and unremitting horror (immagine something suitably Dantean) there might be a considerable reduction in the number of repeat offenders...

or increase in Cop killers

If we are talking murders rapist and legit bad people fine but when you start talking drug users, petty thieves and crimes of social inconvenience (like graffiti or discrimination) you have to be more reasonable. part of the problem may be our system is too broad and complex and tries to micro manage people too much (maybe  people are pretty stupid)

darknessss wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Punishment is a deterrent to crime since when?

People who commit crimes generally either think they'll be part of the majority of criminals who go unpunished: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9415793/Police-fail-to-solve-three-in-four-crimes.html

... or they simply don't think that far ahead, committing the crime because they see no other option.

The idea of a person saying, "Damn, I'd love to boost that car but then I'd probably be caught and sent to prison" is kind of laughable, if you think about it.

maybe for a "first offender", but if prison was sufficiently a place of despairing and unremitting horror (immagine something suitably Dantean) there might be a considerable reduction in the number of repeat offenders...

darknessss wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:

darknessss wrote:

maybe for a "first offender", but if prison was sufficiently a place of despairing and unremitting horror (immagine something suitably Dantean) there might be a considerable reduction in the number of repeat offenders...

or increase in Cop killers

If we are talking murders rapist and legit bad people fine but when you start talking drug users, petty thieves and crimes of social inconvenience (like graffiti or discrimination) you have to be more reasonable. part of the problem may be our system is too broad and complex and tries to micro manage people too much (maybe  people are pretty stupid)

In which case give ME the right to FULLY uphold MY rights...and kick seven bells of shit outta the pathetic scumbag

you know...kinda....you break into MY house and I'm going to bend a 3 foot length of iron pipe over your anencephalous dome....

Ben_Reilly wrote:

darknessss wrote:

maybe for a "first offender", but if prison was sufficiently a place of despairing and unremitting horror (immagine something suitably Dantean) there might be a considerable reduction in the number of repeat offenders...

It is just that in the U.S., and prison's even worse in many third-world countries that also have astronomic crime rates. It doesn't work.

In fact, many people who get long prison sentences in the U.S. just come out worse criminals than they were when they went in.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

darknessss wrote:

In which case give ME the right to FULLY uphold MY rights...and kick seven bells of shit outta the pathetic scumbag

you know...kinda....you break into MY house and I'm going to bend a 3 foot length of iron pipe over your anencephalous dome....

What, in the UK are you forced to make home invaders tea or something?

Brasidas wrote:You are confusing blood sucking lawyers out to make money Victor with human rights, where they are out to make a buck on a technicality and in fact make a mockery of human rights.
Do not blame the ECHR for that, but money grabbing lawyers

veya_victaous wrote:you do have a point Darkness

I personally believe that you should be allowed to defend you property and you should not be required to retreat...


but if they retreat or cease to be a threat (cause you bashed on the head etc) you have to stop. none of this they are trying to steal my telly so now I get to kill them even once they have surrendered. several example from the USA where the 'invader' was unarmed and even begging for their life and the home owner has taken it upon themselves to be judge jury and executioner. (let alone the dumb buggers that shoot their own kids when they try and sneak home late etc)
which brings the other point, the threat has to be identified (to stop idiots killing their own families etc) the perception of threat is not enough the threat has to be real, you decide to take violent action with out properly identifying the threat and it turns out to 'not be a threat' you should face the consequence for for your violence.

veya_victaous wrote:in reality most illegal home invaders are trying to steal non specific goods of value. thus when confronted with 'Considerable defence' will retreat or surrender.
it is all in balance really, If you call them out tell them you are armed and to surrender and they attack, the consequences are on them (including death) if they run well you can make attempts to detain them but those attempts should not include 'probable deadly force'

sorry...no "calling out" or option to surrender or warning of being armed.....Just "WHACK" with no warning out of the dark.....
they have zero right to be there and are abrogating my human rights...ergo they lose theirs.....I have reasonable cause to presume "deadly intent"...



On the Judges, remember Most judges are ex-lawyers "top of the profession". they are party to the same scam. it isn't that the ideals are wrong it is that there is profit to be made by having a convoluted and overly complex system. the entire industry exists to maintain the lawyers existence, it creates the need and sell the solution. Really mass education and literacy should have render lawyers obsolete, to stop it lawyers and judges got together and decide that sometimes they would use words that have a meaning and give them a slightly more specific meaning, i.e. Jargon. a lawyers only purpose is to translate legal Jargon and legal Jargon serves no purpose.

Prosecutors did not dispute McBride’s intoxication. McBride’s friend did testify that they engaged in social drinking earlier that night, and her blood alcohol level was tested at .218 — three times the legal level. But testimony also corroborates that Wafer fired the deadly gunshots in response to nothing other than McBride’s knocking at the front door after an apparent car accident. He never spoke to her. He never heard her say a word. He says he didn’t even see what she looked like. Prosecutor Athina Siringas said McBride had “the misfortune to walk on Wafer’s porch.”

A homeowner said he shot a 14-year-old boy because he thought the teen was trying to break into his house. But police said the teen was unarmed and did not pose an "imminent threat" when he was shot early Friday and have charged the owner with attempted second-degree murder.

darknessss wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

darknessss wrote:

In which case give ME the right to FULLY uphold MY rights...and kick seven bells of shit outta the pathetic scumbag

you know...kinda....you break into MY house and I'm going to bend a 3 foot length of iron pipe over your anencephalous dome....

What, in the UK are you forced to make home invaders tea or something?

make em tea...give em your wife for the night....and then "donate em your telly"

darknessss wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:Appears some people don't understand this and the fact that the UK is also a signatory under the ECHR and international human rights law and the United Nations charter of which we are a  permanent members of the Security Council,and a founder member. Leaving the ECHR would also mean having to withdraw from these organisations and the roles we play meaning our country would be isolated and marginalised in the civilized world.

People should be careful what they wish for.

The myths

https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/human-rights-act-myths

rubbish...utter tosh...
more "liberal non sense"

The usa is NOT a signatory to the ehcr....and yet is member of those bodies...

we could just as well write OUR own bill of rights and responsibilities and as long as it is in conformance with INTERNATIONAL LAW it does not have to be the terrorist protecting, criminal cuddling, lawyer feeding political game we are at present stuck with

christ...i wish all these EU snoggers would grow  up and WAKE up...

the sky WONT fall on our heads if we leave

you are like the chief of the gauls in asterix......

Ben_Reilly wrote:

darknessss wrote:

make em tea...give em your wife for the night....and then "donate em your telly"

Sorry, I read up on the issue (bad news for your side) and yeah, you do have the right to defend your home, even in the UK ...

veya_victaous wrote:Actually they may well have the legal right, it is not trespass unless they have intentions of illegal activity.
To what extent to you include Property? in you bedroom it is fair assumption of illegal activity.
but what if you property is the only one for miles and you back on to a national park? people may be legitimately lost.
people are allowed to enter you property to ask for assistance.


do you actually read posts properly before answering??..But again Perhaps i wasnt specific "defensible property" is considered your home (only) personally i think it shopuld include the garage and outbuildings too.



even in suburbia just the act of entering your property is not a crime. opening a door uninvited{even if unlocked} is generally considered the threshold for assumption of innocence, if the door is unlocked and the person entering clearly announces their presence there is again an assumption of innocence. what I said...

Example from the USA

Prosecutors did not dispute McBride’s intoxication. McBride’s friend did testify that they engaged in social drinking earlier that night, and her blood alcohol level was tested at .218 — three times the legal level. But testimony also corroborates that Wafer fired the deadly gunshots in response to nothing other than McBride’s knocking at the front door after an apparent car accident. He never spoke to her. He never heard her say a word. He says he didn’t even see what she looked like. Prosecutor Athina Siringas said McBride had “the misfortune to walk on Wafer’s porch.”

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/08/07/3468759/homeowner-who-shot-dead-a-girl-on-his-porch-found-guilty-of-murder/

Quite simply IF you don't you probably haven't adequately determined the threat
sure there are circumstances where you have been able to determine the threat with out calling out but in real life not movies/daydreams they are the minority of situations. most Burglaries happen while people are away and thus not there anyway.

and there is actually something very 'anti-social' about the desire to use deadly force when not necessary,

just like the antisocial theft and inevitable destruction that goes with it...eh?
just like the greedy liberalist left to invent a system whereby full on defence of property is not allowed, and you have to pay "protection money" to their fat friends (isurers)  

just because there is an allowance in the law for it. A quite reasonable argument can be made that these individuals constitute a similar threat to society. Personally I dislike the idea of 'intentionally killing the invader' because it is people like that bring the whole 'castle defence' idea into question (and thus If I accidentally killed the invader cause me issue). If they didn't exist we could fairly say defend you property with minimal legal repercussions, but when individuals are looking for an excuse to Kill you cant because they identify anything as a deadly threat simply so they can use maximum force rather than the force required.  

A homeowner said he shot a 14-year-old boy because he thought the teen was trying to break into his house. But police said the teen was unarmed and did not pose an "imminent threat" when he was shot early Friday and have charged the owner with attempted second-degree murder.

http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2013/07/marigny_homeowner_shooting.html

darknessss wrote:unfit for purpose
place criminals rights above those of victims
allow the likes of "hook hand" to outstay his welcome
removes "punishment" from sentencing and replaces it with so called "rehabilitation" which clearly doesnt work

has resulted in the absurd situation where...when you get elderly in britain your best choice is actually prison rather than a "nursing home"

is used as an excues by liberals and lefties to allow the grossest of HR violations by proven worthless individuals to go largely unpunished

case in point

why the f**k should prisoners be allowed to vote.... AND more importantly why was this EVER brought before the courts at a huge cost???

what part of "you are useless to society and thus banned from it for a period of time" do these cretins fail to see....

I could go on and on and on.....

The human UDHR made in 1948 was sufficient and required little changing....why has it grown into the moster it is?

Brasidas wrote:Why are some so against human rights.
This really is an oddity to me.

darknessss wrote:

Brasidas wrote:Why are some so against human rights.
This really is an oddity to me.

Well YOU clearly are ...when it suits you

funny how "elastic some peoples views can bein an effort to bend over for the govt to shag em)

YOU would be happy to give up article 8.....for a start.....

Brasidas wrote:

darknessss wrote:

Well YOU clearly are ...when it suits you

funny how "elastic some peoples views can bein an effort to bend over for the govt to shag em)

YOU would be happy to give up article 8.....for a start.....

Well I am very much for human rights.
Do I view conversations you have with people, where what you say has no bearing on the country? Does the person who may have listened to this be denying you the right to a private life?
Whether use the mobile or email etc, you are using the facilities of companies that makes it possible for you to communicate. There is nothing to stop them listening in on your calls.

Except they use 128 bit encryption and do NOT have the key....the services involved do not keep copies of the keys used to generate the encryption that is a matter between the computers....what the govt wants is that the services KEEP the keys....

The fact is you are using something that is publicly used and shared.

That does NOT preclude the reasonable expectation of privacy

You do not own the facilities either or the communication links. Which means you have no validity to claim article 8. When you use this facility you go into their (who's?) domain and as long as they do not pas on what they can listen into, (and WHAT....exactly makes you think they WONT pass it on for profit) there is little you can do or even know about. Thus if they already can do so and the secret service needs to listen in on calls, which again it has done for years as the Government has overall control the land these systems are used on. They (who? the govt does F**k all to "make it possible) thus make it possible for you to communicate this way and when you use their (who's service????) service you have to expect to comply with heir policies. If not then you will have to communicate to others long distant another way.

So I very much back human rights, but you cease to have privacy rights when you are using someone Else's facilities to communicate. (so you are saying therefor that hence forth post is no longer private ?) You choose to communicate knowing that can be listened into, you thus forfeit your right to privacy. (however that should not prevent me from attempting to obsucre the message if I so wish)
Also you are not covered in this regard on article 8 anyway:



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.

Brasidas wrote:Really shows you have no idea, thinking where you actively use something, you forfeit your privacy rights, let alone I am not going to go around in circles just because you sometimes struggle with concepts.
I do not bend over to anything, I follow and abide by the law. we are not talking about following the law...we are talking about restrictive and unnecessary laws that do nothing for the problem they are supposed to be helping, and can only be used for bad purposes...like "spying" on the press to obtain sources which is going to have a "chilling" effect on whistle blowers
I look at what is reasonable, which national security is, where it helps prevent loss of life.
There is nothing in your reply other than someone who thinks that even though he lives with the boundaries of England, his selfish views apply more. Your out weighed in needs of others.
64 million of them to be precise, where actions that lead to preventing the loss of life will superseded your privacy views. Nobody has said you do not have a right to privacy, everyone does, even though anyone who wants to hide things, generally has something to hide. You have privacy, accept where there a greater need  (who's need ?) than your privacy to do so.
Not going to get drawn into another slagging match


All the best


Have a good evening

darknessss wrote:..................................

is used as an excues by liberals and lefties to allow the grossest of HR violations by proven worthless individuals to go largely unpunished

.............................

I could go on and on and on..........

Ben_Reilly wrote:.......................

A lot of right-wingers are that way. Things sound good to them in theory but then when big bad life bites them on the ass, they change their ways.

Ironic, as a lot of people try to paint left-wing views as idealism. Sorry, but in a lot of cases they were forged by people who have actually experienced the things right-wingers only know about from movies.

Lone Wolf wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:.......................

A lot of right-wingers are that way. Things sound good to them in theory but then when big bad life bites them on the ass, they change their ways.

Ironic, as a lot of people try to paint left-wing views as idealism. Sorry, but in a lot of cases they were forged by people who have actually experienced the things right-wingers only know about from movies.

GOOD Points, well put...