h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Todays Times carries an article on the PM's intention to acknowledge the failures in the justice system...new legislation is to be considered to stop offenders taking advantage of the Human Rights Act.

Well, well, how long have we ( and the rest of the nation ) been banging our heads on this particular brick wall, seemingly now to succeed in at least forcing a re-think.?

Perhaps the CPS will now no longer take kids to court over alledged racist tremarks in the playground, or a police constable to court - and conviction _ now overturned, for allegedly cuffing the ear of some young scroat.

Let'ss all HOPE that common sense, and the good of the many , will triumph over the PC obsessed bureaucracy.

Novo

Not sure I agree Novo.

I think even criminals have basic human rights - the right to a fair trial, for example, like the Afghan kidnappers.

The right not to be deported to somewhere where they will be tortured or killed, like some of the asylum seekers we have been discussing.

The right not to be assaulted in custody.

The road that starts with saying that we mustn't let procedural niceties get in the way of 'justice' or 'common sense' runs through Guildford (the Guildford Four and other home grown miscarriages of justice) passes by Guantanamo Bay and finishes in something like the Pinochet regime. Of course this is just the first step, but every journey begins with a first step, right?

sprout

Not followed this much but there was a LibDem bod (I think) on telly who said that in the high profile cases recently which had prompted the outcry in the media, none of them were actually caused by application (or mis application) of human rights legislation but rather by failure of the existing process.

I impatiently await the Human Duties Act....

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Me too PC

Novo

It is worth noting that the original human rights text (France, 1789) was a declaration of the rights and duties of the citizens.

To be fair, we do have a number of laws that set out what we have to do - the entire Common law is based on this principle. What would a general act add to this?

sprout

It might - just might - highlight the existence and importance of our duties as well as our rights. You're right, it ought to be obvious, but....

Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"

Perhaps under the human duties act it ought to be made mandatory for people to look a little deeper into things before they start whigeing...yet again...about "Political correctness gone mad" As far as I know political correctness does not interfer with the rights or more possibly wrongs of policemen assaulting children. I for one dont see a rethink about the wording or use of the European Convention of Human Rights as a victory for anyone but those who think its OK to kill people for dissent or those who believe the lie that we'd be safe except for our "lax" penal system.


Once again Novo you have tried to give the worthy and neccessary use of political correctness in balancing out some of the inequalities which for no good reason give some people a less chance in life the blame for something it is NOT concerned with.

The law against police officers assaulting people without due cause is, try to remeber this, a 'law'.Not a PC nightmare foisted on you by some tofu eating sandal wearing pinko lesbian from her ivory tower in the posh suburbs of London as you seem to imagine.


In the first paragraph I used the word policemen when, in line with PC thinking I should have used the word policeofficers to include female and gender nuetral coppers, therefore making it clear that its all police personnel who shouldnt beat people and not just the male ones and just as important making implicit in my use of language that all peopl regardless of gender have an equal profile and right to be part of the police force. A police force that I belive that would do a lot better if it upheld the law equally for all at all times and didnt "cut corners" or as we call it breaking the law when it sutied them.

Here in this post for you Novo there is an example of what PC is and is not. Perhaps you can bookmark this thread for when you have trouble telling such things apart in the future.

one love

Well, 10/10 for paragraph 1 and 1/10 for the rest Blicky.

Like some others round here you seem to think that patronising and belittleing people in your arguments make them better arguements. It doesn't.

I'm not sure how they'd propose to amend the HRA anyway. Not and keep it within the ambit of the European Convention of Human Rights, and I don't see Labour about to pull out of that one, and I don't think if push came to shove, Darling Davy would either, whatever he says now.

Can I be the link police for a minute and as a general request ask for a weblink to current affairs if local news is a forum topic. Ta.



>>>new legislation is to be considered to stop offenders taking advantage of the Human Rights Act.<<<

There's been some high profile cases here where prisoners got large amounts of compensation for being brutalised by prison guards. I have no doubt that the prisoners were treated very badly and illegally, but I have mixed feelings about this as the victims of the crimes for which those men are in prison had virtually nothing in the way of financial recompense for the damage they sustained. However I think the solution to this isn't to take away the human rights of the prisoners, it's to put in place effective justice for victims alongside that.

This is a general discussion on recent matters and comments by politicians in the UK.

Why the bloody hell does everything need to be linked to? There is life and communication and methods of finding things out outside of the internet.

Morning Blicky

Yes , as Blues says 10 / 10 for frist part, 1 /10 for last para.

You and I may disagree, you may take umbrage at my views - but I am polite to you, whilst you are just plain insulting, which diminishes your argument.

Novo

I have to beg leave to differ Novo, I might swear and spit but or talk in the most polite terms I can muster but I dont see how that can "turn sh*t to shoe polish".

How does me someone being rude make the truth less true?

"Oy big nose love thy flippin neighbour" as Jesus may have said.

one love

Hi Sprout

Apologies for late reply ( got shot by Blicky - again)

Of course criminals have their right to free and open trials. I don't for a minute suggest otherwise. But you cannot be unaware of the number of cases where the HRA has been used by clever lawyers too achieve a result that would otherwise perhaps not come about.

In my own personal view the HRA is a 'good thing', it is the misuse (if not abuse) of it which is unnaceptable .

As far as eportations are concerned it is interesting to note that the Somalian , who couldn't be deported because it would be too dangerous for him, was recently 'hiding' in Somalia.

Novo

The argument in the state paying compnsation for the failings of state employees seems perfectly fair to me, even to the extent of compensating people beaten by prison guards.
However, unless someone had been beaten so badly that they were permanently disabled, where there were identifiable victims of a prisoner's crime, there would seem to be some justice in saying

"You have been awarded X thousand pounds. However, some or all of it has been taken away to give to your victims."

>>"But you cannot be unaware of the number of cases where the HRA has been used by clever lawyers too achieve a result that would otherwise perhaps not come about."

Could you give examples of criminal trials where the HRA has been involved?

>>>
This is a general discussion on recent matters and comments by politicians in the UK.

Why the bloody hell does everything need to be linked to?
<<<

Er, so that people who don't live in the UK know what is being talked about without having to go and do some research first. It's a courtesy, and also an indication of openness to wider than local perspectives.

I think the case that has been highlighted recently is that of Anthony Rice, who was freed from prison because lawyers feared they would be sued - under the Human Rights Act - if they didn't free him.

He subsequently murdered a 21 year old.

The problem is that whilst he was known to be dangerous, he had paid the penalty for the crime he was locked up for.

The law is that you can't be locked up for what you MIGHT do.

Read again Blicky,

<>

Please note that in both cases I used the word alledged. Secondly the Police Constable has had his conviction overturned and his force is about to reeinstate him - so presumably then he might have been innocent?

Would you suggest that either prosecution looked ( on the face of it ) a 'sensible' one to bring? And whose best interests were served?

Finally,

It isn't that you spit or swear ( we have been down this road before ) that diminishes the point you make. It is , as has been said the spite with which you attempt to belittle those who you disagree with.

Regards
Novo

Hi PC

I don't think i mentioned criminal trials, and wasn't thinking of them in particular. I used the word 'cases' becuase that covers other areas.

NO. without going back over the news I couldn't be specific about a criminal trial in which the HRA was used