more signs of a forthcoming police state?

[Azrael]

Quick everybody the rights of terrorists, criminals, yobs and school bullies are being attacked. Everyone on the far Left rally now!

Personally I couldn't give a monkey's fuck about the rights of criminals; but I care very much about the rights of people not proven to be criminals. It's a distinction that's often and deliberately forgotten.

The hijackers been give leave to stay goes against every law of natural justice, where you don't reward criminal activity. This is the judiciary that you want to defend! I am very angry at the tosspot judges that came up with this decision.

The first part I agree with; never mind natural justice, it's a longstanding principle of common law that you can't benefit from a crime. But which tosspot judges are you blaming? The UK court was obliged to follow a Euro Court precedent from 1996 that you can't deport people to their deaths. Despite what the gutter press claim judges can't just make their own opinion law. (Well, most of the time. )

 

[detective-boy]

AFAIK the suggestion is that ministers, not parliament, would overrule the courts. And not on general issues, but on specific cases.

That's my point. In this thread - and in much of the (typically) hysterical media coverage - that is the impression given. But when you actually read the detail from the sources it doesn't say that at all.

Have a panic by all means. But that isn't what is being proposed.

 

[detective-boy]

The hijackers been give leave to stay goes against every law of natural justice, where you don't reward criminal activity. This is the judiciary that you want to defend! I am very angry at the tosspot judges that came up with this decision.

Police now are not putting up wanted posters because it goes against the human rights of the wanted person because it exposes then to ridicule.

The courts would have been able to deal with hijackers case differently had they government not deliberately flouted the law themselves (as has been the case in a number of high-profile incidents).

And the wanted posters statement is bollocks. Yes, the issue is (quite rightly) considered. But, no, there is no ban on wanted posters.

 

[detective-boy]

In which case why talk about new legislation?

The application of human rights is, and always has been a balance.

If you have a right to liberty but I have a right to life and you are considered a (possible) danger to the public does your right to liberty get infringed by locking you up / imposing some conditions on your movements or does my right to life (possibly) get infringed by your being allowed out?

The rights of the individual suspect are usually more obvious and "in your face" (not least because they jump up and down and point them out) than the somewhat more abstract rights of some potential, ususually unidentified potential future victim and, hence, the balance often lies towards the individual.

The government is saying this is wrong and the balance needs to be redressed. There are training issues involved for those who make the decisions but, if that is not enough, they may legislate to make sure that the abstract rights of the public are given sufficient weight. I can't personally see how they will actually achieve this by legislation, but that is their intent.

 

[detective-boy]

Personally I couldn't give a monkey's fuck about the rights of criminals; but I care very much about the rights of people not proven to be criminals. It's a distinction that's often and deliberately forgotten.

I wouldn't say it is appropriate not to give a "monkey's fuck" about the rights of convicted criminals but there should be a presumption that their rights take a lower priority than the rights of others. View it as part of the sentence if you like - transgress against societies rules and you will be at a disadvantage to those who do not.

 

[Greebozz]

The courts would have been able to deal with hijackers case differently had they government not deliberately flouted the law themselves (as has been the case in a number of high-profile incidents).

And the wanted posters statement is bollocks. Yes, the issue is (quite rightly) considered. But, no, there is no ban on wanted posters.

As Understand it from listening to radio 4 an immigration panel granted them leave to stay and recognized there claim for asylum. What you call government flouting, was successive home sectaries refusing to accept that decisions of the grounds of total wrongness and the feared massive fury and backlash from the British public.

You are quite right about the wanted poster there is no ban on them, just the serious worry about being sued, would you risk being sued? Burgerler are suing house owners for twisting there ankles after jumping over their high fence to burgle their house. A teacher tries to restrain a violent pupil and they are sued. Defend yourself against a mugger and you are likely to be sued. These are rare instances but they do happen. I want human rights law to be in favor of the victim not the perpetrator.

I think most people here think that the Human rights Act is a good thing because it will help them out when they break a window during the Mayday riot. But I disagree I see a surge in general yobbery, where there are few consequences for making the lives of other hell.

 

[Azrael]

I wouldn't say it is appropriate not to give a "monkey's fuck" about the rights of convicted criminals but there should be a presumption that their rights take a lower priority than the rights of others. View it as part of the sentence if you like - transgress against societies rules and you will be at a disadvantage to those who do not.

Comes the something when its the copper telling the civil libertarian he's being too hard on cons.

Okay, I do give more than a simian's jiggling for felons' rights. Of course I support basic protections against assault, mistreatment, starvation etc. But beyond that, like you say, I their rights have lower priority than everyone else's; and I see the usual burden of authorities having to justify their actions being reversed.

Recent cases enfranchising convicted criminals and, of all things, enshrining their right to hard-core porn (there's already enough wankers in the system) make a mockery of the criminal justice system.

 

[kyser_soze]

The original story was only half true, and it's a classic storm in a teacup, since in order to change the legislation the govt would have to substantially rewrite the HRA.

The main problem at the moment is that anything that smacks of 'rights' is being dragged over the coals by the mids and tabs, regardless of whether or not it's actually applicable (for example, the case this comment centres around is that of the Afghani hijackers who can't be deported because they could face unfair treatment if deported back to Afghanistan...not actually an HRA issue (IIRC it's covered by another treaty) but it's been seized upon by the press as an example of HRA 'failure'. The irony of course is that 2 guys suspected of being responsible for the Rwanadan massacres are living in Bedford and can't be deported because there isn't a mutual extradition treaty with Rwanda, and they could probably argue successfully that they wouldn't receive a fair trial if sent back home...doncha just love it?

Blair is finished anyway - he's lost so much political capital in Westminster among NuLab and elsewhere this kind of thing is pretty desparate...

 

[cemertyone]

As Understand it from listening to radio 4 an immigration panel granted them leave to stay and recognized there claim for asylum. What you call government flouting, was successive home sectaries refusing to accept that decisions of the grounds of total wrongness and the feared massive fury and backlash from the British public.

You are quite right about the wanted poster there is no ban on them, just the serious worry about being sued, would you risk being sued? Burgerler are suing house owners for twisting there ankles after jumping over their high fence to burgle their house. A teacher tries to restrain a violent pupil and they are sued. Defend yourself against a mugger and you are likely to be sued. These are rare instances but they do happen. I want human rights law to be in favor of the victim not the perpetrator.

I think most people here think that the Human rights Act is a good thing because it will help them out when they break a window during the Mayday riot. But I disagree I see a surge in general yobbery, where there are few consequences for making the lives of other hell.

LOL... how old are you?? no seriously!!! because after reading your posts i`m lead to believe that you either have a mental health problem or you have been reading your Parents Newspapers to often....

 

[TAE]

But when you actually read the detail from the sources it doesn't say that at all.

Do you have a link?

 

[fela fan]

Blair is finished anyway - he's lost so much political capital in Westminster among NuLab and elsewhere this kind of thing is pretty desparate...

Will the climate he's ruling in be finished too when blair is finished?

Or will spin and lies and blatant bullshit, and attacks on individuals' rights to live a life free from state interference, remain after blair's demise?

If so, then it matters not a jot whether blair goes or stays.

 

[kyser_soze]

No one knows what the climate will turn to once Blair is gone - Brown is authoritarian, but it may well be in the next few months that Gordy can no longer count on a succession appointment. There are enough members in the Labour party (and some Tories) who disagree with authoritarianism to start to reverse the wheel as it were.

Besides which several illegally detained prisoners in Belmarsh notwithstanding, the tide has already started to turn anyway - Lord Goldsmith coming out and condemning Gitmo as illegal for example.

 

[Greebozz]

LOL... how old are you?? no seriously!!! because after reading your posts i`m lead to believe that you either have a mental health problem or you have been reading your Parents Newspapers to often....

Bruce Lee said that when he first started learning kung fu, it seemed very simple.

But As he learned more, and saw the hundreds of styles and techniques it became very complicated and confusing.

But said that when he finally mastered kung fu, it became perfectly simple again.

 

[Nemo]

Greebozz, a few questions for you:

1. Do you believe that universal human rights are important?
2. Do you believe in the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty?'
3. If so, do you object to those accused of crimes being accorded the same rights as the rest of us?
4. If not, why not?
5. What on earth gives you the impression that the only use for the Human Rights Act is to protect the rights of people you don't believe deserve it?
6. Do you believe that the government should be able to send people back to countries where it is likely that they would be tortured and/or killed?
7. Do you believe that there are any circumstances in which a person should lose even their most basic human rights?
8. (Why) do you trust the government with increasingly centralised powers over our lives?
9. Do you believe that the courts should be able to uphold the law without fear or favour?

 

[cemertyone]

Bruce Lee said that when he first started learning kung fu, it seemed very simple.

But As he learned more, and saw the hundreds of styles and techniques it became very complicated and confusing.

But said that when he finally mastered kung fu, it became perfectly simple again.

Listen confucious just answer the question...how old are you?
The reason that i ask is that some of the examples that you give ( the teacher one in particular) has given me some concerns about your well-being.
Now back to the topic and stay of the Bruce Lee......

 

[kyser_soze]

[qoute]Do you believe that the government should be able to send people back to countries where it is likely that they would be tortured and/or killed?[/quote]

How would you apply this in the case of the suspected Rwandan guys I mention earlier?

 

[Nemo]

How would you apply this in the case of the suspected Rwandan guys I mention earlier?

UN tribunal? Try them here?

 

[kyser_soze]

They've commited no crime in the UK and there's no standing extradition agreement with Rwanda...

UN Tribunals are toothless - if convicted where will they be imprisoned?

 

[Lock&Light]

UN Tribunals are toothless - if convicted where will they be imprisoned?

Nederland is refusing to accept Charles Taylor for trial in Den Haag unless and until some other country agrees to imprison him after conviction. It was hoped that Denmark might, but they seem to have got cold feet.

 

[Nemo]

They've commited no crime in the UK and there's no standing extradition agreement with Rwanda...

UN Tribunals are toothless - if convicted where will they be imprisoned?

I thought that there was some new law or other which allowed the courts in this country to try cases of crimes like genocide. As for UN Tribunals, isn't there one for Rwanda already?

 

[magneze]

Bruce Lee said that when he first started learning kung fu, it seemed very simple.

But As he learned more, and saw the hundreds of styles and techniques it became very complicated and confusing.

But said that when he finally mastered kung fu, it became perfectly simple again.

You're talking absolute cobblers on this thread but I have to say - that's a good comeback!

 

[Greebozz]

Greebozz, a few questions for you:

1. Do you believe that universal human rights are important?
   
   Yes but I don't like the attitude I deserve everthing and nothing has to come back from me.
   
2. Do you believe in the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty?'
   
   Yes
   
3. If so, do you object to those accused of crimes being accorded the same rights as the rest of us?
   
   Yes but not to the extent the law is made a laughing stock.
   
4. If not, why not?
   
5. What on earth gives you the impression that the only use for the Human Rights Act is to protect the rights of people you don't believe deserve it?
   
   I can't be bothed to write the ten page essay just trust me I have the impression
   
6. Do you believe that the government should be able to send people back to countries where it is likely that they would be tortured and/or killed?
   
   no but I doubt if the Taliban would torure and Kill these hijackers, I don't want the UK to seem a soft touch
   
7. Do you believe that there are any circumstances in which a person should lose even their most basic human rights?
   
   There is very subjective, the wishes of the majority must be respected, the thing to consider is if some does a serious crime their basic human rights are taken away when they get sent to prison.
   
8. (Why) do you trust the government with increasingly centralised powers over our lives?
   
   Yes,
   
9. Do you believe that the courts should be able to uphold the law without fear or favour?
   
   Yes but I think they are taking to piss and judges should be elected
   

...

 

[Nemo]

So basically you're saying that because the media and a few politicians with a vested interest in advancing an agenda which would divert attention away from their incompetence and give them more power and publicity say that the Human Rights Act is responsible for all the ills in the world, you're prepared to take them at their word?

 

[winterinmoscow]

So basically you're saying that because the media and a few politicians with a vested interest in advancing an agenda which would divert attention away from their incompetence and give them more power and publicity say that the Human Rights Act is responsible for all the ills in the world, you're prepared to take them at their word?

In a nutshell, that's my question too.

 

[detective-boy]

Do you have a link?

The link in the original post doesn't even say what is being reported. Here's another one:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article484130.ece

 

[Greebozz]

1 Does anyone here consider themselves to be absolutely neutral in there analysis?


2 If you had the choice to decide public policy yourself or give everyone a vote to decide and issue. Would you make the decision yourself or risk the dreaded mob deciding to do the wrong thing?


3 Are you equally certain about everything you say, are there some things you are less sure about (no need to say what they are)?

Ocasionaly they do a Bloody good issue on the world issues and the environment like today. However I think they should keep this logo it is a hell of a lot more honest than calling themselves The Independent.

 

[Nemo]

1 Does anyone here consider themselves to be absolutely neutral in there analysis?

I'm assuming you mean 'their analysis,' and no, I don't believe it's possible to have neutral analysis.

2 If you had the choice to decide public policy yourself or give everyone a vote to decide and issue. Would you make the decision yourself or risk the dreaded mob deciding to do the wrong thing?

It depends. On the generality, the policy should be the responsibility of elected representatives. However, there should be safeguards guaranteeing a minimum level of human rights which the politicians can't interfere with, and individual cases shouldn't be decided by the lynch-mob.

3 Are you equally certain about everything you say, are there some things you are less sure about (no need to say what they are)?

I'm not sure what you're talking about here, but I'm 100% sure that I don't want a large body of ignorant Daily Mail-readers sitting in judgement on people whose cases they know nothing about.

 

[Greebozz]

I'm assuming you mean 'their analysis,' and no, I don't believe it's possible to have neutral analysis.



It depends. On the generality, the policy should be the responsibility of elected representatives. However, there should be safeguards guaranteeing a minimum level of human rights which the politicians can't interfere with, and individual cases shouldn't be decided by the lynch-mob.




I'm not sure what you're talking about here, but I'm 100% sure that I don't want a large body of ignorant Daily Mail-readers sitting in judgement on people whose cases they know nothing about.

Thanks for replying, I sort of agree the reason I asked is everyone seems much more cirtain of there position than I am. The point I would make is you have to trust the masses as it were


Good answer but you call people a lynch mob, thinking yourself superior to others is dangerous


That shows you don't respect people like a lot of others here. All the evil ideologies are from people who think they know better that the "ignorant" masses.

The thing that gets me is very few people seemed to be troubled by the fact that their view are in the tiny minority. It is like some sort of twisted elitism

 

[Nemo]

Good answer but you call people a lynch mob, thinking yourself superior to others is dangerous

IMO calling hangers and floggers a lynch-mob is a simple statement of fact.

That shows you don't respect people like a lot of others here. All the evil ideologies are from people who think they know better that the "ignorant" masses.

I respect all people as human beings, but beyond that, people have to earn my respect. And as for the 'ignorant' comment, do you actually know what 'ignorant' means? It means that people don't know about something and isn't synonymous with 'stupid.' And let's face it, pretty much everyone who's commenting on this issue is ignorant of the cases they're talking about.

The thing that gets me is very few people seemed to be troubled by the fact that their view are in the tiny minority. It is like some sort of twisted elitism

Ever hear of the tyranny of the majority? You make it sound like disagreeing with the majority view in some way makes you a bad person; have you read 1984 perchance?

 

[Greebozz]

You have to consider everyone's opinions as being equally valid in my view. It is a sign that you really respect other people.