Human rights strikes again.

[jeds]

Just for a change, wouldn't it be nice if the police used the human rights act to protect a victim rather than a child abuser.

http://news.sky.com/story/1240830/anger-as-paedophile-demands-victim-photos

 

[big-all]

whilst it leaves a bad taste in the mouth its nothing to do with human rights as such its more to do with the boundaries set by the law
i would have thought an "accident " with the laptop erasing all information would be seen as a compromise

 

[Bosswhite]

This has been discussed at length on Local TV and Radio phone ins, in this area.

The Photographs were not of the expilicit type, the child abuser was a family member so was therefore entitled to have photographs, videos etc of family members as anyone else is entitled to

The problem is where does one draw a line where family is involved.

 

[jeds]

I'm not talking about his human rights, I'm talking about hers. They are quick to defend the rights of abusers and criminals but fail to recognise that this young girl has a right to go about her life without having to worry that this piece of sh1t is allowed to keep photos of her on his laptop. Common sense says her basic human right should over-ride a minor legal technicality.

 

[Bosswhite]

The child has the right to have photographs of family members, do you suggest that every photograph be disposed of.

 

[jockscott]

They are quick to defend the rights of abusers and criminals

How true jeds. It's time courts acknowledged the rights that victims should have enjoyed, instead of pandering to the bloody rights of the criminals they (supposedly ) mete justice out to.

 

[conny]

The child has the right to have photographs of family members, do you suggest that every photograph be disposed of.

Its not the child who wants the photographs.
Its the evil bas tard that abused her who wants them!
And at the moment the stupid current laws in this country mean he is entitled to have them handed back to him when he is released!

When is this country going to wake up and face the fact that a victim has no rights because of its namby pamby pandering to the flaming do-gooders! Its time this was stopped.

 

[JBR]

Don't the 'human rights do-gooders' realise that they are effectively encouraging crime?

 

[Bosswhite]

The child has the right to have photographs of family members, do you suggest that every photograph be disposed of.

Its not the child who wants the photographs.
Its the evil bas tard that abused her who wants them!
And at the moment the stupid current laws in this country mean he is entitled to have them handed back to him when he is released!

When is this country going to wake up and face the fact that a victim has no rights because of its namby pamby pandering to the flaming do-gooders! Its time this was stopped.

The Paedophile was a Family Member why should he forego photographs of his family relatives. The photographs were nothing more than family snapshots.
.
Just because we dont like certain family relatives are we expected to bring in a law that bans them from having photographs of any of their relatives

 

[Razor900]

If they'd hung the **** he couldn't ask for them back could he?

 

[jeds]

The child has the right to have photographs of family members, do you suggest that every photograph be disposed of.

Its not the child who wants the photographs.
Its the evil bas tard that abused her who wants them!
And at the moment the stupid current laws in this country mean he is entitled to have them handed back to him when he is released!

When is this country going to wake up and face the fact that a victim has no rights because of its namby pamby pandering to the flaming do-gooders! Its time this was stopped.

The Paedophile was a Family Member why should he forego photographs of his family relatives. The photographs were nothing more than family snapshots.
.
Just because we dont like certain family relatives are we expected to bring in a law that bans them from having photographs of any of their relatives

But Boss, his status as just a family member changed when he decided to abuse the poor girl. I'm not saying there should be a photo squad forcing people to delete normal family photographs but when somebody has been jailed for something like this to let him then swan off with photos of the victim on his laptop is just plain wrong.

 

[Bosswhite]

The Paedophile was a Family Member why should he forego photographs of his family relatives. The photographs were nothing more than family snapshots.
.
Just because we dont like certain family relatives are we expected to bring in a law that bans them from having photographs of any of their relatives[/quote]
But Boss, his status as just a family member changed when he decided to abuse the poor girl. I'm not saying there should be a photo squad forcing people to delete normal family photographs but when somebody has been jailed for something like this to let him then swan off with photos of the victim on his laptop is just plain wrong.[/quote]

I agree, but where does one draw a line over who should have family photographs
Its something that has made news headlines and there is no real answer .

 

[jeds]

where does one draw a line.

This isn't an ordinary situation. Draw the line directly under the word guilty.

 

[RogueHanger]

Some things are right but not necessarily good, and vice-versa.
Somethings are wrong but not necessarily bad, and vice-versa.

It's the nature of the world in which we live.

 

[joe-90]

You live in a different one to the rest of us mate. It's called 'la-la-land'?