Knocked a cyclist over.... up to 50 mph in the crowded parts of our capital city....took to the pavement at times.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32701705
Ended up on my old manor.
|
|
Only 'up to 50mph' though. Bit slow for London.
|
|
Shame. He should have been shot. Several times. Scum.
|
maybe after the Conservatives have re-arranged the human rights stuff we can see some proper sentences handed out.
but there again... maybe not
|
>>maybe after the Conservatives have re-arranged the human rights stuff we can see some proper >>sentences handed out.
>>but there again... maybe not
I cannot understand why people want to see the Human Rights Act repealed.
The Act sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms that individuals in the UK have access to. They include:
Right to life
Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment
Right to liberty and security
Freedom from slavery and forced labour
Right to a fair trial
No punishment without law
Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence
Freedom of thought, belief and religion
Freedom of expression
Freedom of assembly and association
Right to marry and start a family
Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms
Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
Right to education
Right to participate in free elections
Who in their right mind would want to give up their rights listed above?
And worse, if a politician wants to remove the Act, what do they really have in mind?
|
|
Very good point, very well made.
|
|
The act is a loony left charter for the benefit of criminals and terrorists. I had no problems before the act was passed and I doubt if any of the regulars here did either.
|
>> The act is a loony left charter for the benefit of criminals and terrorists. I
>> had no problems before the act was passed and I doubt if any of the
>> regulars here did either.
So that's all right then? .....
|
>> The act is a loony left charter for the benefit of criminals and terrorists. I
>> had no problems before the act was passed and I doubt if any of the
>> regulars here did either.
>>
Not everyone who has benefitted from the HRA is a terrorist or murderer seeking asylum in the UK and many normal people have benefitted, it is just that the loonies get all the press.
|
>> Not everyone who has benefitted from the HRA is a terrorist or murderer seeking asylum
>> in the UK and many normal people have benefitted, it is just that the loonies
>> get all the press.
I'd go further and suggest that elements of the press (Murdoch Harmsworth, Barclays et al) deliberately fail to mention the HRA when it's a part of 'popular' wins. I'm thinking particularly of care proceedings - an area where the 'champions of freedom' are first to trumpet about 'gagging' and 'secret' courts.
|
>> The act is a loony left charter for the benefit of criminals and terrorists. I
>> had no problems before the act was passed and I doubt if any of the
>> regulars here did either.
No I didn't. But plenty did, how about the Guildford four? The Maguire Seven? Birmingham 6.
We had no human rights in the UK, the Magna Carta is not worth the parchment its scribed on.
|
>> Very good point, very well made.
+1
|
The bottom line for me with the Human Rights Act is interference from abroad.
I want THIS country's Parliament or Courts to decide ultimately what is what.... not a collection of people in Europe.
We've had a system that most of the rest of the world envied for God knows how long prior to the HRA... and I see no reason why we can't arrange something sensible after we've binned it.
That way we'll still look after those that need it, as we mostly always have done... and won't have our hands tied for the odd foreign crook that needs kicking out.
|
>> I want THIS country's Parliament or Courts to decide ultimately what is what
That's EXACTLY what the HRA does.
(1) The Convention gives us the rights set out in Zippy's post at 18:00*. Think of them as analogous to a constitution. Which of them do you disagree with?
(2) The HRA permits you to enforce those rights in this country's courts rather than having to have the money and persistence to get them determined by a collection of people in Europe.
What is there not to like?
Of course, like any constitution, rights apply to everybody and sometimes they give unpopular outcomes.
But if that wasn't the case they'd be privileges not rights.
* www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?t=19771&m=436305&v=e
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 13 May 15 at 20:29
|
>> The bottom line for me with the Human Rights Act is interference from abroad.
>>
>> I want THIS country's Parliament or Courts to decide ultimately what is what.... not a
>> collection of people in Europe.
Sometimes you can't trust our parliament or courts.
|
>> >> Sometimes you can't trust our parliament or courts.
>>
As has been proved many times in the fairly recent past.
|
>>>> Sometimes you can't trust our parliament or courts.
Indeed. And mostly you are not talking about particularly malicious or malevolent courts. Imagine is someone in power subverted the system, you might become very happy about an over-riding human rights act.
Having said that, its clear that the balance isn't correct. We should be able to kick people out for abusing a system which is not theirs.
|
>> We should be able to kick people out for abusing a system which is not theirs.
In reality we can. There are of course going to be some cases on the margins and it's very easy to make those look as though they were truly egregious.
|
>In reality we can
Kind of.
I would like to see a list of rules which an person wishful of immigrating would sign up to on pain of being shipped out if they breached them.
i.e.
if you are convicted of a crime (above a certain level, i.e. not parking on a zebra crossing), you're out. No ands, ifs or buts.
if you are refused leave to remain, then you are out. By all means appeal from another country, but you're out in the meantime.
Now for some of those the problem is our implementation, for some it is legal interpretation and for some the law is overstepping the mark.
|
I remember being told about the American constitution when I was visiting a client in Chicago a few years back, before the HRA but it was going through Parliament at the time.
Over drinks the client, very conservative by my standards (think Charlton Heston) and was very proud for their constitution. He even pointed out, proudly that it wasn't just for Americans and protected visitors like me!
The Tory party are rumored to be keen on bringing back the death penalty. Perhaps removing the HRA is the first step on this road and with the corrupt police (present company excepted) force that we have in this country I think that would be a bad idea.
|
>> I would like to see a list of rules which an person wishful of immigrating
>> would sign up to on pain of being shipped out if they breached them.
>>
>> i.e.
>>
>> if you are convicted of a crime (above a certain level, i.e. not parking on
>> a zebra crossing), you're out. No ands, ifs or buts.
Now let's suppose, however implausible it might be in reality, your daughters were treated as immigrating. And then one of them is convicted on a slim majority verdict of parking on a zebra crossing.
|
Then other than the fact that they are not immigrants, and other than the fact that I used parking on a zebra crossing as an example of something too small, then they would need to obey the law.
Its pretty simple.
If you don't like the rules, then don't sign up to them. Immigrating to the UK is not compulsory. It shouldn't be difficult, but it should be a right either.
|
>> Then other than the fact that they are not immigrants, and other than the fact
>> that I used parking on a zebra crossing as an example of something too small,
>> then they would need to obey the law.
The point I was making was that - as an example - (a) expat's kids can miss out on citizenship for reasons that might be unfair and (b) folks get on wrong side of laws, even fairly petty ones, for egregious reasons.
Better to leave such cases to Judge's discretion then pretend each/every one is either 1 or 0.
|
I am an immigrant here.
If I light a fire in an unauthorised place (such as a protected forest) I will be deported if caught.
That is the law and there is nothing I can do about it.
I think its pretty silly, because if I light the fire carefully what does it matter. But its not my decision whether or not it is a stupid law, it *is* their law.
So guess what? I don't light fires where I shouldn't, but about a month ago two Canadians were deported for just that.
i.e. Get convicted of {example list} robbery, burglary, assault, rape, murder etc. etc. and you will leave the UK.
The Jury can decide if you're guilty or not, the Judge can apply the law. There is no discretion required from the Judge.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 13 May 15 at 22:57
|
>>expat's kids can miss out on citizenship for reasons that might be unfair
Quite difficult to see how, but unfair or not, them are the known rules.
Change the rules if you wish, but lets not introduce the idea of some kind of subjective discretion where there is no need for it.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Wed 13 May 15 at 22:59
|
>>Lighting fires....
The HRA protects you if you do light a fire.
Say you are in the USA.
Lighting a fire will get you arrested. The police will follow due process and you will be prosecuted and jailed if guilty. The constitution saves you from cruel and unusual punishments so they cannot chop off your hands.
Now, if the constitution applies to American citizens only, they could chop off your hands because you are not protected from cruel and unusual treatments.
In the same way the HRA applies to all here, be they Christian or Muslim, pacifist or terrorist.
You cannot repatriate a person to a country that is likely to kill that person just because you don't want them here. It is as good as doing the killing yourself.
Why are there all these headlines in the press re the HRA and terrorists. Do the politicians really want to send a person to their death or do they want a media circus that gets their name in the press?
|
>>You cannot repatriate a person to a country that is likely to kill that person
That would presumably be an asylum seeker rather than an immigrant? Or in any case, I would differentiate between those two, whatever you call them.
|
>> Now let's suppose, however implausible it might be in reality, your daughters were treated as
>> immigrating. And then one of them is convicted on a slim majority verdict of parking
>> on a zebra crossing.
I read No FM's post as excluding parking on a zebra crossing.
(I witnessed an amusing incident from the comfort of a restaurant recently. A copper and a PCSO stopped and walked around a newish Mercedes parked opposite, on the zig zags AND in front of a gate marked "Do not obstruct". While the copper wrote a ticket, the PCSO took a picture. At this point the driver returned and set about justifying his behaviour. Some people deserve to be deported, even the natives...)
|
>> I read No FM's post as excluding parking on a zebra crossing.
With hindsight I think you're right. Yesterday I read it other way - zebra crossing first offence to cross the trigger point.
|
>> I like the way this guy puts it:
>>
A barrister seeing one of his gravy trains at risk of being cancelled.
|
|
Is that your real view ON or are you posting to provoke comment? Perhaps you need to tell us in your posts now.
|
>> Is that your real view ON or are you posting to provoke comment? Perhaps you
>> need to tell us in your posts now
Its his standard response to anything involving lawyers. Saves the trouble of thinking.
|
2 years for dangerous driving - Armel Coussine
