The human rights act...

[Sombrero]

Well it's missed a trick.....

What it needs to do is allow points for those rights, a weighting if you like, and this should be posed against a set of points of the people you impact by having that right.

So you have a right to air = 9/10 and opposing...(no one is affected by you having access to air), therefore 9 vs 0 : Ruling = approved.

You have a right to vote = 7/10 (in a coma, clinically vegetative etc) and opposing - you are a serial criminal with total disregard for the rules of a society, therefore 1 point to all those citizen in society.. therefore 7 vs 60million: Ruling = denied.

You have the right to adopt children = 3/10 and opposing - you have a conviction for pedophilia, therefore 100 points to all children and parents in the country... therefore 3 vs 50 billion: Ruling = denied...

You get the idea.... it needs refining e.g. for crims having pool tables in prison etc... but there is a story in the news where a pedo claimed it was against his human rights not to allow him to adopt a child !!!

Beggars belief, really does!!

==================================================================================
Very old thread

Restart is here

The human rights act...

Can you explain (in simple terms) why so many lawyers and barristers, then use the Human Rights Act as some sort of leverage to protect/defend criminals? Sorry about the late reply. Been a bit hectic around here recently. :roll: :roll: :roll: In simple terms -- It's a feature of our...

www.diynot.com

==================================================================================

 

[jockscott]

Should really be replaced with a Human Responsibilities Act. Let's see some crims in court claiming their Human Responsibilities.

 

[foxhole]

So you have a right to air = 9/10 and opposing...(no one is affected by you having access to air), therefore 9 vs 0 : Ruling = approved.
Tell that to your diving buddy as your air valve jams shut.

 

[Space cat]

You have a right to vote = 7/10 (in a coma, clinically vegetative etc) and opposing - you are a serial criminal with total disregard for the rules of a society, therefore 1 point to all those citizen in society.. therefore 7 vs 60million: Ruling = denied.

Ah, the vexed problem of voting rights for prisoners. Actually, I don't really care whether they get the right to vote or not but this issue highlights a fundamental problem with formulating 'rights'. I think you'll find that everybody, everywhere, is in favour of 'human rights' on two conditions:

1) They don't prevent them from doing whatever it is they like to do.

2) They don't allow others to do anything they disapprove of.

So where do you start? If you go down the road of not upsetting anybody on those two counts, you'll end up with something like:

You have the right to step on the cracks in the pavement - except on Thursdays.

The idea of a vote does have a certain appeal - that is how a democracy works after all - but minorities tend to loose out. There was a time, not so long ago, when Jews, gypsies, negroes (can I still use that word on here?), communists, homosexuals et al lost out on a grand scale. And so the ECHR was formulated with the intention that it should never happen again.

Is it not the mark of a decent democracy that minority interests are also considered - and if that means giving prisoners the right to vote then so be it.

And by the way, our own record on human rights hasn't always been so squeaky clean, as any homosexual will tell you.

 

[plugwash]

I don't think denying criminals a vote is a good idea.

The way I see it if so many people are criminals that giving them the vote makes a significant difference there is something seriously wrong with the laws.

 

[ellal]

There's nothing wrong with the human rights act...

It's the interpretation that the courts put on it that needs adjusting...

Scrap it (as the nasty party want), and we'll all be worse off!

 

[jockscott]

There's nothing wrong with the human rights act...

It's the interpretation that the courts put on it that needs adjusting...

Scrap it (as the nasty party want), and we'll all be worse off!

Nah, scrap it and probably criminals will be worse off. I must agree however that it's the interpretation that the courts put on it that needs putting right. But,,, that interpretation follows guidance from government. Over to you Mr Cameron.

 

[JBR]

Is it not the mark of a decent democracy that minority interests are also considered - and if that means giving prisoners the right to vote then so be it.

I think you're missing something quite important.

Most minorities have done nothing wrong; criminals clearly have.

For that reason, I oppose the suggestion that prisoners be given the vote.

 

[plugwash]

Most minorities have done nothing wrong; criminals clearly have.

Criminals have either done something that the government at the time considered "wrong" or been framed for doing so.

Since the government can make laws that make virtually anything a crime taking the vote away from criminals allows the government to remove people from the voting pool on a pretty arbitrary basis. Do you not see a problem with that?

 

[jockscott]

Criminals have either done something that the government at the time considered "wrong" or been framed for doing so.

Ahh I think I see. You think the government is responsible for people breaking the laws of the land (and if they're not,, frame them) Makes perfect sense.... PS what drugs are you on? (non prescription)

 

[JohnD]

The UK government has got into trouble by refusing to consider any sort of graduation

e.g.
Locked up in high security jail for 90 years for mass murder = no vote

Locked up for 7 days for refusing to pay parking fine = vote

In an open prison after long period of rehabilitation being prepared for release back into the community in 3 days time = vote

 

[JBR]

Most minorities have done nothing wrong; criminals clearly have.

Criminals have either done something that the government at the time considered "wrong" or been framed for doing so.

Since the government can make laws that make virtually anything a crime taking the vote away from criminals allows the government to remove people from the voting pool on a pretty arbitrary basis. Do you not see a problem with that?

God, you got me worried there. For a moment I thought I was in Communist Russia or Nazi Germany.

I know this country has had it, but it's not quite that bad just yet.

 

[JBR]

Locked up for 7 days for refusing to pay parking fine = vote

I think they'd have to be very unlucky to get banged up in the same week that a general election was being held!

Apart from that, I think the selfish b u g g e r s who get done for parking offences deserve at least 15 years! BMW drivers should get 25 years minimum!

(Needless to say, I have never had a parking ticket because I always seem to find a legal place to park. )

(Edit: How can anyone be offended by the 'B' word?)

 

[JohnD]

I think they'd have to be very unlucky to get banged up in the same week that a general election was being held!

But that's the reason the UK govt has been found non compliant, in regards to witholding the vote from people in prison. It has a blanket ban, unrelated to severity of crime, length of sentence or anything else.

If, as you say, there would not be many people locked up for seven days which included the day of an election, the UK govt might agree with you, and say, not much cost in letting them vote then, so let's try to balance their right to vote against some other factor, such as the possible benefit in rehabilitation of teaching criminals to become responsible citizens. But it refused. Perhaps in order to avoid offending Daily Wail readers.

 

[JBR]

But that's the reason the UK govt has been found non compliant

Apologies for being slightly off-topic, but I look forward to the UK being completely 'non-compliant'.

I am assuming that 'non-compliance' = refusing to accede to EU diktats. Personally, I'd prefer to be governed from Westminster rather than Brussels.

Vote UKIP.