Human Rights Act to be retained

[nomadking]

Cases can still end up at the ECHR with non-British Judges.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by nomadking

Cases can still end up at the ECHR with non-British Judges.

They certainly can.

It means we can get judgements such as this

Thanks for that Matt D ,interesting read and does show the truth of the matter .

I have never doubted that the press exagerate these things but it has to be said that if these stories are only reported in the press ,with government spokesmen NOT taking the oportunity to respond with the actual facts then they can't be surprised when the great unwashed only believe what's in the currant bun ,or the daily fail .If the government did use right of reply a bit more often and backed it up with hard proof then maybe we would see a bit more accurate reporting from the press[COLOR="Silver"]

---------- Post added at 20:52 ---------- Previous post was at 20:45 ----------

Originally Posted by BBKing

Er, yes. If you read the ECHR you'll easily spot the bits that say 'unless such-and-such happens'. The Convention therefore explicitly allows deprivation of liberty *after due process in a court of law*. .

i know that it's maggie that doesn't

Originally Posted by martyh

Thanks for that Matt D ,interesting read and does show the truth of the matter .

I have never doubted that the press exagerate these things but it has to be said that if these stories are only reported in the press ,with government spokesmen NOT taking the oportunity to respond with the actual facts then they can't be surprised when the great unwashed only believe what's in the currant bun ,or the daily fail .If the government did use right of reply a bit more often and backed it up with hard proof then maybe we would see a bit more accurate reporting from the press.

---------- Post added at 20:52 ---------- Previous post was at 20:45 ----------

i know that it's maggie that doesn't

Eh?

All I've done is defend the fact that we have a human rights act that is applied equally to all...and pointed out you cannot just have human rights just for the righteous among us. That it's not a pick and choose way to apply it.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Eh?

All I've done is defend the fact that we have a human rights act that is applied equally to all...and pointed out you cannot just have human rights just for the righteous among us. That it's not a pick and choose way to apply it.

but we do ,we remove rights for the unrighteous via a judge and due process
you are giving the impression(to me any way)that everyone is deserving of all human rights and i don't see that ,i believe that rights should be removed for those not deserving of them ,of course this should be done by means of the law ,and has been pointed out this is allowed in the HRA

How i see it is that EVERYONE gets the same rights untill a person commits a crime then some of those rights are removed and rightly so

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by martyh

Thanks for that Matt D ,interesting read and does show the truth of the matter .

I have never doubted that the press exagerate these things but it has to be said that if these stories are only reported in the press ,with government spokesmen NOT taking the oportunity to respond with the actual facts then they can't be surprised when the great unwashed only believe what's in the currant bun ,or the daily fail .If the government did use right of reply a bit more often and backed it up with hard proof then maybe we would see a bit more accurate reporting from the press[COLOR="Silver"]

No problem.


One problem I think is that Govt. spokesmen do not always seem to bothered about responding with actual facts, plus of course sometimes it seemed that the Government was more interested in pandering to the Sun & Mail rather than pointing out how they may have been inaccurate.

The DCA report I linked to is very interesting, but of course not something which would have received much press.

---------- Post added at 21:15 ---------- Previous post was at 21:13 ----------

[ btw, I've edited the last few posts as the quote tags were completely screwed ]

Originally Posted by martyh

but we do ,we remove rights for the unrighteous via a judge and due process
you are giving the impression(to me any way)that everyone is deserving of all human rights and i don't see that ,i believe that rights should be removed for those not deserving of them ,of course this should be done by means of the law ,and has been pointed out this is allowed in the HRA

How i see it is that EVERYONE gets the same rights untill a person commits a crime then some of those rights are removed and rightly so

So what rights would you have removed from a criminal and when?

Originally Posted by Maggy J

So what rights would you have removed from a criminal and when?

well ,me not being a criminal have the right to freedom ,criminals don't (untill the law says they can have it back) some don't get it back at all and some are denied the right to live

i don't know what your point is Maggie you should know that the whole point of a judicial system is to remove certain rights from individuals who commit crimes

Originally Posted by martyh

well ,me not being a criminal have the right to freedom ,criminals don't (untill the law says they can have it back) some don't get it back at all and some are denied the right to live

i don't know what your point is Maggie you should know that the whole point of a judicial system is to remove certain rights from individuals who commit crimes

No it's not,the whole point is to punish and deter not remove human rights.

[BBKing]

well ,me not being a criminal have the right to freedom ,criminals don't (untill the law says they can have it back) some don't get it back at all and some are denied the right to live

Any chance of subtitles?

The ECHR *is* the law, obviously. Notably it doesn't actually prohibit the death penalty, either, unless you sign Protocol 13 (which we have).

What it does do is stop the Government doing the kind of things usually associated with repressive, totalitarian or fascist regimes, such as arbitrary arrest, confiscation of assets, imprisonment without trial or due process of law. It also allows free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly etc.

It's odd that it all comes down to 'criminals rights' stuff, but that's the tabloids for you. It's almost as if they have a vested interest in strong unaccountable government.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

No it's not,the whole point is to punish and deter not remove human rights.

Punished by removing certain rights.
Of course when it comes to deportation, then suddenly their human rights can't be removed.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Punished by removing certain rights.
Of course when it comes to deportation, then suddenly their human rights can't be removed.

Even punishment must follow and allow certain human rights.Some here would remove ALL human rights from all in prison.

[BBKing]

Of course when it comes to deportation, then suddenly their human rights can't be removed.

Yes, that's why no one's ever deported from the UK.

Oh hang on. They are. Quite a lot of them. Often in circumstances that would appal the flintiest heart.

Originally Posted by martyh

and how exactly is this good news ?

I was wondering that ....

Originally Posted by Maggy J

The problem is that you either have human rights for all or you have human rights for no one.There is no halfway house.It's all or nothing.

Why ?

There is nothing stopping you making laws that restrict the rights of some - prisoners, terrorists, whatever - take your pick.

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Even punishment must follow and allow certain human rights.Some here would remove ALL human rights from all in prison.

and some(only some) in prison deserve to have all human rights removed

i agree that punishment in prison should follow and allow some rights and the HRA is there to make sure that we ,as a society or even individuals don't step over the boundaries of what rights are allowed to be removed by the sentence a criminal has received .The problem is that the general public (myself included)have the perception that the HRA is being used by criminals to get softer sentencing or illegal immigrants not being deported ,as BBKing and MattD have pointed out this is not necessarily the case ,not enough acurate information is being circulated about how it is being used