Is this what the human rights bill was actually for?

[Malachy]

Anyone saying pigging b******s to that should consider the Greece/Turkey?Cyprus stand off.

 

Well yes, I did say b******s to that. I think it would take a lot more than two leaders opposing each other for France and Britain to go to war. I can't think of any issue that could bring about such a thing....(...thinking...)....No, I really can't. The countries are just too intertwined with each other now, no matter what some people would like to think. One of the benefits I suppose of the infinite layers of beaurocracy that the EU creates, is that it makes crude acts of hostility almost impossible. It would require, I suppose, the election of a fascist government in one or other country before it could happen. And the first thing a government like that would do would be to leave the EU.

 

As for the Cyprus issue, it is a long and complicated one. But resolution within the EU is much more likely to be peaceful than outside it. And the Balkans too will stabilise, I am sure, as they work towards joining Europe (if that is what they plan to do, and I hope it is).

 

There is so much negative feeling about the EU, but I personally think that the developments going on in some of the new member states, and the would-be members, is hugely positive. A country like Romania is certain to benefit from membership. And with any luck Turkey will need to make huge improvements to its human rights as it works towards membership.

[trout]

I would like to point out that I potentially didn't make clear that alteration to the current legislation to apportion "rights"accordingly dependant on your personal circumstance was the direction of thought I was aiming for. Not the scrapping of the Act in it's entirety!

 

Rather a revamp to tie up "loopholes" allowing people that haven't taken consideration of others "Human Rights" before perpetrating acts of criminality the chance to then make a near mockery of our Government run "rehabilitation scheme" aka "prison".

[Styles]

I think if some one has infringed some one elses human rights by killing them, their human rights should be null and void. A lot of people may have human faces but in reality they are not human and should not be able to use laws to protect them from common sense.

[whodat]

Mr Malachy, I think I'd be happier if it was someone a bit more objective than a consulatnt solicitor who lauded the HRA. Slavery? Death penalty? Torture? Yup, everyday occurrences here in the UK.

 

And it's not JUST the UK courts involved. If the litigant disagrees with the result of appeals and rulings here, they can go to a court outside this country with judges not qualified in English/Scottish law to seek a ruling which if differnt overrules any British court and sets a precedent. My, how democratic. DON'T tell me politics does not come into these sort of things, I at least am not naiive enough to believe that. There are huge cultural or "societal" gulfs between our country and others in Europe, particularly the French, and both sides often seem to look for any excuse to bloody nose the other.

 

As for Mrs B, she makes several times a year more than her hubby and a fair proportion of that comes from the work her firm does in HR litigation. There may not be that many cases, but they lead to others and they certainly pay. Both the succesful litigants and -surprise! - their lawyers. Look at the slopping out fiasco for an example. I would be very interested to find out how much the solicitors are getting for that one (One?! Read several thousand, and millions of taxpayers money! )

Another would be- as I said before - the Afghan hijackers. How drawn out was that? How much did the firm get paid for every day, hour, minute spent in court? Bet they did it for free out of regard and respect for their clients human rights, eh?

 

I read a defence solicitor whingeing recently about the proposed cuts to their fees through a standardised tariff and how they may just withdraw their services if it goes through. What a public spirited guy! A credit to his proffession - well, he was a Fiscal, but evidently defence work pays more! The sheer arrogance and venality of the man is representitive of many of his colleagues. I am sure he is on teh bread line, eking out an existence. This in a Britain where we pay our nurses and soldiers (and many other front line workers) a disgraceful pittance!

 

Please don't say they're not all bad, I know that, but they are very well paid compared to most folk (and those like myself who have state pensions to live on.)

[Malachy]

The gist of your argument seems to be that we shouldn't protect human rights because lawyers make too much money. I disagree.

[NewMagnie]

I dont think Sakchai could vote as hes not a UK citizen?

 

You don't have to be a UK citizen to vote, just a permanent resident with indefinite leave to remain.

[Mutton]

UK was fine without the HR.

 

Scrap it! Especially in this day and age of terrorism. The HR is making the UK a more dangerous place to live. EG We are unable to deport the men who took over an aircraft at gun point, crazy!

[Guest Anonymous]

totally agree we whodats last statement.

 

yes human rights is something thats been picked up and made over complicated , and laywer , solicitors are probably the ones responsible for letting rogue elements question human rightss.

 

It should be a very simple to understand set of rules to protect the individual and it should be set in stone and not negotiable in any way.

[Malachy]

I can't understand how a dislike of lawyers should necessarily equal a disrespect for human rights.

 

Droilker, it is a simple set of rules to protect the individual (see the link somewhere above to read the rules). Britain has been signed up to those rules since 1950. Britain's problem is that it keeps breaking the rules! If it stuck to them it would have no problem at all.

 

People test the law all the time. They sue each other, they sue companies, they claim compensation for whatever reason. In all of these cases, lawyers benefit. So why is it that the only thing that annoys you is that other people are entitled to the same rights as you?!! Do you think you should have special rights?

[ArabiaTerra]

The Afghan hi-jackers were tried in the British courts for the hi-jacking. Someone, somewhere along the line, screwed up the prosecution so they were found not guilty. As they had committed no crime (innocent until proven guilty) they were treated as refugees with the same rights as any other refugees. It had nothing to do with the HR act. If you must slag someone fo that one, slag the Crown Prosecution Service not the Human Rights Act.

 

The HR Act protects a basic level of human dignity and I am amazed to read so much condemnation of it on this thread. If it is being used to sue the State successfully then that only shows how far out of line the State has drifted under Tory Liar (sorry, Tony Blair). I believe it was using the HR Act that Britain's answer to Guantanamo Bay was shut down (Belmarsh prison). If it acheived that then that is worth any amount of silly, nit-picking headlines in the Sun or the Mirror. Slopping out should have ended decades ago. If the Government is being sued because it still goes on, that is the Gov's fault, not the fault of the HR Act.

 

If it takes a Power higher than our Government to prevent our Government from locking people up, indefinatly, without charge, trial or appeal using evidence obtained by torture, then I, for one, applaud that and I will sleep more soundly at night knowing that the excesses of Tony Blair etc are subject to at least a modicum of outside scrutiny and control.

 

Look at Guantanamo Bay if you want to see the results of not having the Human Rights act

[Twerto]

Slopping out should have ended decades ago. If the Government is being sued because it still goes on, that is the Gov's fault, not the fault of the HR Act.

 

But I think for myself i dont think the goverment should be sued for the fact prisoners slop out there own cells. ( i'll stick my hand up and say i know very little of this case ) but to me, I would rather hear of a prisioner having to slop out his own cell than haveing someone else have to do it for them.

 

I know some conditions are not great.. but of pictures shown on the interent and news.. i have yet to see anything that totally disgusts me and leaves me thinking these prisoner deserve better. but thats just my opinion.

[Njugle]

I tend to agree with that twerto, i don't think it should be regarded as an infringement that can be sued for. Otherwise you'd have to ban free range caravaning, as this too involves slopping out.

 

HR provides a framework within which prisoners have the right to campaign for improved sanitation, but they really should not be recompensed for not having it.

[Evil Inky]

But I think for myself i dont think the goverment should be sued for the fact prisoners slop out there own cells. ( i'll stick my hand up and say i know very little of this case ) but to me, I would rather hear of a prisioner having to slop out his own cell than haveing someone else have to do it for them.

I don't think it's the actual process of slopping out that is the problem - it's more that being trapped in a cell for hours on end with a bucket full of someone else's bodily wastes isn't terribly hygenic.

[Spinner72]

But dan wirkin doon manhols fur oors at a time wi many foks bodily waste swillin aboot me feet didna gie me da right tae sue da coonty fur it!

 

No winder dirs so much crime noo. Da whole point o prison in da first place should be da removal o foks rights, an a miserable existance as punishment fur dir crimes so ta mak dem (an idders wha might comtemplate crime) tink ageen.

 

da waye it is noo, prison is much mair pleasant dan some foks current existence. Why wirk hard tae survive and better yoursell on da streets if you can just murder someane, spend a few years getting square meals, watchin TV an playin pool, dan sue fur a fine muckle lump sum at da end o it.

[DamnSaxon]

ArabiaTerra's point above needs shouting out loud - IF our government were perfect, or even better than average, then perhaps "we" (UK plc) would be in such a morally superior position that we really could consider ourselves above the rest and laugh at their pathetic attempts to define human rights.

 

Our government is not perfect. Not by a very long chalk (Guantanamo has already been mentioned, and "our" role in the "extraordinary renditions" business frankly stinks to high Heaven). We need external standards, since we are obviously incapable of raising our own.

 

I think people perceive problems whenever the HR legislation clashes with their own "common sense", a phrase which covers a multitude of sins. The main problem we have with external legislation in the UK is that our government tends to impose the external regulations so strictly as to get people's backs up about it, whereas the same rules in, say, France, are treated more as guidelines. The same thing happens in "Health and Safety" legislation, where a man who's spent a life (say) climbing ladders perfectly safely is suddenly told that he can't "in case he falls off". We have a saying for that sort of thing in English ... Bl**dy St*pid.

 

It ain't just the rules, it's the spirit they're taken in by authority that irritates. Too often, human rights or health and safety are offered up as excuses for some stupid decision, and we the public perceive the stupidity and blame the EU. No, we need human rights legislation, but we also need some real common sense. Someone has already pointed out that convicts in prison should lose their human rights for treading on other people's ... what, all of them? What about all the women prisoners who have heinously failed to buy a TV licence, or whatever?

 

We (humans) need rules, and the quicker some common set of rules about decency spreads all round the world and is accepted by everyone, the better.

 

I wish I could say that in Chinese, though. We think we've got problems?