S
Sombrero
What do people think? time to replace it with the court of common sense?
Sponsored Links
I would say just ditch it but I have first hand experience where some of its rules are useful.
The problem is in the interpretation of its rules.
I say we veto european control of it and wrest control of its interpretation to our own supreme court.
Then we will be able to balance the practical needs against the subjective inetrpretation of it's rules.
ie no more keeping terrorists because they have a family.
The problem is in the interpretation of its rules.
I say we veto european control of it and wrest control of its interpretation to our own supreme court.
Then we will be able to balance the practical needs against the subjective inetrpretation of it's rules.
ie no more keeping terrorists because they have a family.
I agree that we should ditch it. We have a very long history of respecting human rights without the ECHR telling us what to do.
Perhaps when the EU eventually collapses, so will the ECHR. Not until a great deal of damage has been done, though.
Perhaps when the EU eventually collapses, so will the ECHR. Not until a great deal of damage has been done, though.
Sponsored Links
It's not so much the ECHR, but the Human Rights Act itself that needs replacing. This bit of legislation should be scrapped and replaced with a Human Responsibilities Act.
British Law should be run from Britain, not some jumped up judges in foreign climes, who declare time after time, that foreign criminals are entitled to stay in the UK just because they've been here a few years and settled down. They obviously have settled into a life of crime.
British Law should be run from Britain, not some jumped up judges in foreign climes, who declare time after time, that foreign criminals are entitled to stay in the UK just because they've been here a few years and settled down. They obviously have settled into a life of crime.
Maybe they're all working hard and saving up to pay for their relocation to Jordan
Yes. As I said elsewhere, just like Arnie he'll be back!
Maybe they're all working hard and saving up to pay for their relocation to Jordan
Working hard.
(raking in benefits, they've never contributed a brass washer to, more like)
S
Sombrero
This is what I think... we all have human rights, undoubtably. But the COHR needs to weigh up each argument and decide if the rights of "the one" are more significant then "the many" opposing it.
So for example, a terrorist may well be at risk if deported (one plus point), but many might think it a risk is they stayed... (many negative points)... Deported.
A muslim prisoner might argue that it's their human right to have halal meat... (one plus point), and as long as other prisoner weren't forced to eat it... (zero negative points).... granted.
The yorkshire ripper kills many girls... the suggestion is his humans rights are compromised? His right to the possibility of relesae equals 1 plus point).. yet the risk to everyone else that he's lying, or capable or further atrocities (many negative points)!!! lock him up until he's bones !
This human rights thing is simple, give me a job ffs !
So for example, a terrorist may well be at risk if deported (one plus point), but many might think it a risk is they stayed... (many negative points)... Deported.
A muslim prisoner might argue that it's their human right to have halal meat... (one plus point), and as long as other prisoner weren't forced to eat it... (zero negative points).... granted.
The yorkshire ripper kills many girls... the suggestion is his humans rights are compromised? His right to the possibility of relesae equals 1 plus point).. yet the risk to everyone else that he's lying, or capable or further atrocities (many negative points)!!! lock him up until he's bones !
This human rights thing is simple, give me a job ffs !
- Joined
- 28 Oct 2005
- Messages
- 31,282
- Reaction score
- 1,998
- Country
S
Sombrero
I think your argument fell at the first hurdle: I'm convinced that we don't all have human rights at all - only certain types of person: criminals, terrorists, illegal immigrants, etc. Someone, somewhere, decided that human rights were not necessary for the majority of us.
Thing is Somby, at any murder trial up and down the country,,, Have you ever heard a solicitor/judge/barrister, etc mention the human rights the bloody victim had (up until the time he/she expired? Nah, the bloody do gooders (do no good at all IMHO) conveniently forget that a victim, had the same human rights these criminals now seem to enjoy.(but sadly had them taken away through the very act of murder) The justice system in this country seems to favour the wrongdoer, instead of the victim.....
In other words it's fooked.
In other words it's fooked.
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
- joinerjohn
- General Discussion
