Poxy Equality and Human Rights rubbish!

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Follow my lead to a lovely new thread...... :happy:

you are like some kind of thread.....worm!

 

[THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK]

Well I'm glad someone seems to understand rather than cross examining me!

For what it's worth, I understand where you are coming from OBL, and make you right.

 

[londonblue]

Paranoia certainly, arrogance no. When they're watching you walk past and you have no idea what they're saying, it is definitely intimidating.

Surely that works both ways? For example, how intimidated would you be if a group of English speaking men were shouting (for example), "'Ere love. Show us ya tits!"? Compare that to how intimidated you would be if a Polish speaking man said the same (in Polish, of course). You would be none the wiser, and therefore no more intimidated than usual.

 

[Boney]

That's bollocks. And fwiw, this was not a thread about racism. It was about human rights being denied to groups of people.

Please point out which particular Article you feel you are being denied which others aren't

Just to help, as i doubt you have actually read the act , here is a link

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents

 

[Thorpe Groyney]

I like it when she goes all Alf Garnett. Gets everyone going.

 

[OldBlueLady]

Please point out which particular Article you feel you are being denied which others aren't

Just to help, as i doubt you have actually read the act , here is a link

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/contents

For goodness sake, it's not about MY human rights, it's about people who, in my opinion, shouldn't be entitled to them who are apparently being denied!!! :headbang:

 

[londonblue]

A report that has this as its opening sentence The human rights of terrorists, illegal immigrants and gypsies should all be given better protection in the UK is always going to get reactions from those of us with more right wing tendencies. What about the human rights of the rest of us? Are we not entitled to protection from the threat of terrorists; the threat both of uninsured illegals driving and for many, their total disregard for the laws of this land and the associated problems arising from gypsy encampments - especially when on illegal ground? When are people in positions of power going to realise that for many of us, the minute any of these people commit a crime then they automatically lose the "right" to human rights?

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/call-terrorist-gypsy-rights-085012462.html

For goodness sake, it's not about MY human rights, it's about people who, in my opinion, shouldn't be entitled to them who are apparently being denied!!! :headbang:

I think that this is what Boney was referring to.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

For goodness sake, it's not about MY human rights, it's about people who, in my opinion, shouldn't be entitled to them who are apparently being denied!!! :headbang:

:unsure::unsure:

 

[Napster]

[video=youtube;BNsrK6P9QvI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNsrK6P9QvI[/video]

 

[SupaBlues]

For goodness sake, it's not about MY human rights, it's about people who, in my opinion, shouldn't be entitled to them who are apparently being denied!!! :headbang:

Well said OBL as soon as anybody regardless of race etc commits a crime then any rights they had should be removed or at least restricted instead of upgraded. How would these criminals etc get treated in a country other than ours? I think send them to a foreign prison and see what rights they have there before moaning about unfair treatment and they would then realise, as the rest of us law abiding citizens do, how easy it is to get along in this country as long as you play by the rules.

 

[OldBlueLady]

I give up, I really do. Why do some people think they are being clever by dissecting people's posts to the nth degree? As other people have said, and I've pointed out before this was about people who think they are outside the law, suddenly seemingly having the support of the Human Rights and Equality people.

 

[Gt Yarmouth Shrimper]

I give up, I really do. Why do some people think they are being clever by dissecting people's posts to the nth degree? As other people have said, and I've pointed out before this was about people who think they are outside the law, suddenly seemingly having the support of the Human Rights and Equality people.

I think it's got more to do with some people wanting to score points off you. Why, I don't know:thumbdown:

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

For goodness sake, it's not about MY human rights, it's about people who, in my opinion, shouldn't be entitled to them who are apparently being denied!!! :headbang:

FFS it is about YOUR human rights.

Human rights apply to each human.

They don't apply to some people and not others. An attack on someone's human rights is an attack on your human rights.



First they came......

 

[Thorpe Groyney]

I'm not taking sides here, because I think everyone except me shouldn't have any rights to anything, but I think in the opening post was also the question 'what about the human rights of the rest of us?' or something similar. That's in part why there was such a reaction. That and juvenile amusement for which I'm as bad as anyone for ^_^

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Well said OBL as soon as anybody regardless of race etc commits a crime then any rights they had should be removed or at least restricted instead of upgraded. How would these criminals etc get treated in a country other than ours? I think send them to a foreign prison and see what rights they have there before moaning about unfair treatment and they would then realise, as the rest of us law abiding citizens do, how easy it is to get along in this country as long as you play by the rules.

Their rights are not upgraded. Human rights are rights that apply to all of us.

Asylum seekers, gays, gypsies etc have exactly the same rights that apply to all of us. They don't have any additional rights.

 

[steveo]

FFS it is about YOUR human rights.

Human rights apply to each human.
They don't apply to some people and not others. An attack on someone's human rights is an attack on your human rights.
.

But its quite clear that OBL is saying that everyone will get beneficial treatment due to their "human right" for doing wrong and the human rights bollocks is far too lenient for criminals. She isnt worried about the rules being too harsh on here as she probably doesn't intend to go and rob someone, beat them up or burgle their home.

 

[OldBlueLady]

Their rights are not upgraded. Human rights are rights that apply to all of us.

Asylum seekers, gays, gypsies etc have exactly the same rights that apply to all of us. They don't have any additional rights.

But the point is, why, if they are law breakers should they retain those rights? That is how it affects the rest of us.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

But the point is, why, if they are law breakers should they retain those rights? That is how it affects the rest of us.

The key word here being "if".

Is it the human rights of people convicted of being a terrorist or a gypsy (didn't know that one was a criminal offence, but hey) that is being questioned here or the human rights of people/untermenschen merely suspected of being this?

That's a huge, fundamental difference that is getting ignored in the :witch Hunt::witch Hunt:

Part of human rights is about having the decency to ask the question are they actually law breakers in the first place before depriving them of their basic freedoms. No-one is saying that terrorists shouldn't be locked up.

But its quite clear that OBL is saying that everyone will get beneficial treatment due to their "human right" for doing wrong and the human rights bollocks is far too lenient for criminals. She isnt worried about the rules being too harsh on here as she probably doesn't intend to go and rob someone, beat them up or burgle their home.

She might not be intending to go and rob someone, beat them up or burgle their home but this is as much about the possibility of someone wrongly accusing her of doing so.

 

[steveo]

I think you are still deliberately missing her point.
This is from a piece in the Guardian - soory

"The new report shows that a total of 425 deportation cases have been overturned on appeal, the overwhelming majority on human rights grounds"

It relates to foreign prisoners who have come to the end of their sentences but can stay as deporting them will infringe their human rights. Total bollocks. I cant think of many people who would go along with this rubbish.l

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

I think you are still deliberately missing her point.
This is from a piece in the Guardian - soory

"The new report shows that a total of 425 deportation cases have been overturned on appeal, the overwhelming majority on human rights grounds"

It relates to foreign prisoners who have come to the end of their sentences but can stay as deporting them will infringe their human rights. Total bollocks. I cant think of many people who would go along with this rubbish.l

First of all 425 in a country of 65 million is so incredibly small it's really not worth talking about - and not all 425 were even on human rights grounds. Compare that to the number of people wrongly accused of crimes each year. That will dwarf that figure.

Secondly whose human rights are being infringed? You are assuming that it's the prisoner's but the fact is you don't know. YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION.

Thirdly, take a look at the thread on SZ about who's owned up to being a criminal. You'd have deported half of SZ. Does this make them bad people, or are you willing to give them a second chance?