Poxy Equality and Human Rights rubbish!

[SupaBlues]

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?

So you are suggesting that half of SZ are illegal immigrants or terrorists as this is what the op was about if i recall. I suggest you read the details of the thread before trying to make an informed response!

 

[osymandus]

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?

Im totally with YB here , not as a pop at OBL or making fun, she raised her concern fair enough , but what tends to happen when people talk in vague terms on highly complex subjects , and not have full knowledge of how it works , we kind of get these points .

Human rights are universal , they have to be or they are a nonsense . As does the ability to form an opinion , yet sadly many think an opinion is enough on a subject alone , rather then having understanding to back it up.

 

[steveo]

First of all 425 in a country of 65 million is so incredibly small it's really not worth talking about

The figure you should be quoting is 425 of the 5375 who have finished their sentence. Thats about 8% - not so incredibly small.

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.

I am assuming the ex prisoner is appealing on the basis of his human rights being infringed. I doubt he would appeal against deportation based on the man in the corner shop having his human rights infringed.
Maybe I DONT HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION ETC ETC but do you?

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?

I did read that thread but dont recall anyone (that's 100%) saying they served a prison sentence, were from a different country (so where would they be deported to?), or claiming their human rights were infringed, so I cant see any relevance to that thread at all.

By second chance do you mean we should allow people into the country and if they commit a crime which carries a custodial sentence and then appeal against deportation at the end of their sentence, we should let them stay and have a second chance of committing more crime? If that's what you mean then no, I wouldnt give them another 5 minutes. Send them back to where they came from and whilst at it, give them the bill for having had to keep them for the duration of their prison time.

 

[OldBlueLady]

So all those arguing here, do you think it right that the report I quoted in the original post should criticise the authority to detain suspected terrorists for up to 14 days without charge because this is longer than the 4 days maximum for other criminal acts? Isn't an act of terrorism normally that much more serious that it deserves a longer period of detention while investigations continue?

Do you think it right it should criticise that asylum seekers may be detained for long periods without any realistic prospect of removal, breaching their right to liberty? Aren't we just trying to exercise some control over the situation with the back history that we have of the number of illegals that just "disappear" when they arrive? Shouldn't we be in control of our borders rather than the UN? Asylum seekers that are detained in this way are afforded every human right apart from liberty, they are fed, clothed and watered, given free medical care and will probably look forward to benefits once their application is agreed. How many of these cases actually fail?

Do you think it right that councils should be criticised for overlooking gypsies' "human rights" because they have failed to provide enough sites for their caravans? Isn't the whole point of being a gypsy that you travel? Aren't councils supposed to look after their borough's inhabitants, out of money paid for by those inhabitants? Just what do gypsies contribute towards that?

Just a few points that maybe Yorkie Blue and others may like to respond to as this was the point of the original post which so many seem to have failed to realise, and before it went off on several tangents.

 

[osymandus]

So all those arguing here, do you think it right that the report I quoted in the original post should criticise the authority to detain suspected terrorists for up to 14 days without charge because this is longer than the 4 days maximum for other criminal acts? Isn't an act of terrorism normally that much more serious that it deserves a longer period of detention while investigations continue?

Do you think it right it should criticise that asylum seekers may be detained for long periods without any realistic prospect of removal, breaching their right to liberty? Aren't we just trying to exercise some control over the situation with the back history that we have of the number of illegals that just "disappear" when they arrive? Shouldn't we be in control of our borders rather than the UN? Asylum seekers that are detained in this way are afforded every human right apart from liberty, they are fed, clothed and watered, given free medical care and will probably look forward to benefits once their application is agreed. How many of these cases actually fail?

Do you think it right that councils should be criticised for overlooking gypsies' "human rights" because they have failed to provide enough sites for their caravans? Isn't the whole point of being a gypsy that you travel? Aren't councils supposed to look after their borough's inhabitants, out of money paid for by those inhabitants? Just what do gypsies contribute towards that?

Just a few points that maybe Yorkie Blue and others may like to respond to as this was the point of the original post which so many seem to have failed to realise, and before it went off on several tangents.

One the first point yes , as terrorism is not a "normal " crime . Your either investigating suspected terrorists before hand or catching and chasing those who performed it . So either way your likely to have a larger amount of information and evidence to get these people in . Our court system is such (and remember its influenced by the bombing campaign from IRA era) that unless you have the evidence WTF are you doing pulling in random people and leaving them some where for 2 weeks with out good reason ? The other point is it is investigated by MI5/6 who are or should be far superior at getting evidence then your average plod .

Thats a lot of generalisation going on there . We are in control (well as much as can be ) of our borders . The UN don't dictate the passage of economic migrants never mind asylum seekers . It's right to criticize any system that has issue and is failing , but there isn't one specific fix for this problem . And you say that a lot of these people will be fed and kept , why is that bad ? And isn't better that each of these people are delt with individually . I understand peoples frustration at what they see and here , but sadly their individual issues each with an individual solution , send em all back or let em all in isn't going to work on either count .

Yes as the problem was originally made far worse by the closer of specific sites in the 60s-70's . Im not saying the Rom's were angels but the segregation and removal of these areas no longer allowed them to be self sufficient . A lot we're not even using council amenities so there for couldn't be charged for things (one issue in this mind , plenty of other points of poor education and insect from the communities caused some people to try to crack a walnut with a sledgehammer ) Hence why the 1960's act of Caravans and development was later amended with the 1968 provision to give Rom/Irish et al places to stay . Mind you a bit of digging shows it goes back maybe as far as 1554 and teh Egyptian act that sentence any traveller to death for entering England ;-) .

 

[steveo]

Human rights are universal , they have to be or they are a nonsense .

Yes, we all agree. No one is disputing that fact. The point OBL is trying to make is that the Human Rights bill often appears to be weighted in favour of the wrongdoer where it should be in favour of the victim.

The case of Abu Qatada for instance. Although all UK parties want him deported we cant deport him. So if this bloke poses a "serious" risk to Britain's national security, surely I should be able to call on the human rights bill to keep me safe from him, but I cant as the European Court has already ruled he cant be deported.
So he is being protected by Human Rights and I am not.
He has been described as truly dangerous by British Judges. As far as i know they have never said that about me. So again the potential bad man is protected.
Should have shot the **** dead a number of years ago.

 

[Boney]

Its "Human rights" not "non offending Human rights"

These criminals had appealed their sentence, and the appeal was upheld regarding the deportation at the end of it bit.

Or is it now being proposed that the right of appeal is to be withdrawn from overseas prisoners.

As for the original post, I am still at a loss which of the Human rights I am being denied (as I assume I am one of the "rest of us" who is being denied ).

 

[Boney]

Yes, we all agree. No one is disputing that fact. The point OBL is trying to make is that the Human Rights bill often appears to be weighted in favour of the wrongdoer where it should be in favour of the victim.

The case of Abu Qatada for instance. Although all UK parties want him deported we cant deport him. So if this bloke poses a "serious" risk to Britain's national security, surely I should be able to call on the human rights bill to keep me safe from him, but I cant as the European Court has already ruled he cant be deported.
So he is being protected by Human Rights and I am not.
He has been described as truly dangerous by British Judges. As far as i know they have never said that about me. So again the potential bad man is protected.
Should have shot the **** dead a number of years ago.

Which section of the HR act is that then ?

You are protected by the same human rights as him though, I understand it was Article 3 the prohibition of Torture and 5 A right to a proper trial which were the grounds for the appeal and as far as I can see the ruling has not had any affect on these rights for you

 

[steveo]

Which section of the HR act is that then ?

No idea mate, I am only making an assumption that my basic human rights should allow me to be safe. If thats not the case then the whole thing is more ****ed up than I ever imagined.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

So you are suggesting that half of SZ are illegal immigrants or terrorists as this is what the op was about if i recall. I suggest you read the details of the thread before trying to make an informed response!

Maybe they are gypsies?

Im totally with YB here , not as a pop at OBL or making fun, she raised her concern fair enough , but what tends to happen when people talk in vague terms on highly complex subjects , and not have full knowledge of how it works , we kind of get these points .

Human rights are universal , they have to be or they are a nonsense . As does the ability to form an opinion , yet sadly many think an opinion is enough on a subject alone , rather then having understanding to back it up.

Oh FFS, I've no chance of arguing this now.

The figure you should be quoting is 425 of the 5375 who have finished their sentence. Thats about 8% - not so incredibly small.

The same human rights apply to all 65 million of us. This applies to less than 425 out of 65 million.

I am assuming the ex prisoner is appealing on the basis of his human rights being infringed. I doubt he would appeal against deportation based on the man in the corner shop having his human rights infringed.
Maybe I DONT HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION ETC ETC but do you?

I'm not the one saying that their deportation was right or wrong. I've just said there may be other factors that need to be considered. It might be the human rights of an ex-prisoner's family. What if the prisoner was an Australian - so speaks English and is nice and white for you all - who had married an English wife and had three kids, all born in England and lived in England all their life. What if someone had molested one of his kids and he'd decided to take revenge and had beaten someone up. He's convicted and sent to prison. At the end of his prison sentence, having served his time, there's an order for him to be deported. What about the kids' right to a father? In this circumstance is it proportionate to send the convict back to Oz? Or should you consider the impact on his three English kids?

Remember to answer in black and white, because there can be no gray.

Either human rights is something that should be considered or it shouldn't be a factor.

 

[steveo]

The same human rights apply to all 65 million of us. This applies to less than 425 out of 65 million.

But the case I pointed out involved 425 of of 5375. The other 64994625 were not in danger of being deported.

Either human rights is something that should be considered or it shouldn't be a factor.

It should but be a factor not in its current state of protecting bad guys.

Anyway, you are now officially on Osy's side so you lose.

 

[londonblue]

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

At what point do you draw the line? We're all law breakers to a certain extent (you included, just):

http://www.shrimperzone.com/vb/showthread.php?70832-Your-Nicked-Son!!

Does that mean none of us should be allowed any rights?

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

So all those arguing here, do you think it right that the report I quoted in the original post should criticise the authority to detain suspected terrorists for up to 14 days without charge because this is longer than the 4 days maximum for other criminal acts? Isn't an act of terrorism normally that much more serious that it deserves a longer period of detention while investigations continue?

I think we need to be incredibly careful about using such draconian powers.

There have been plenty of suggestions that anti-terrorist legislation is being used for non terrorist situations.

If you seach on google for "anti-terrorist legislation used" you'll see that the first page alone throws up stories about it being used to check for dog collars (the Torygraph), to catch charity shop donors (the Evening Standard), to conduct illegal stops and searches (Gruandiad), and of course the civil rights loving Daily Hate Mail "More than half of town halls admit using anti-terror laws to spy on families suspected of putting their rubbish out on the wrong day."

I've no idea whether these allegations are true or not, but it's highly concerning and so I'd welcome a report looking into such allegations in the detail that it deserves - and given the number of negative headlines I'm not going to be overly surprised if it's critical of our anti-terrorism legislation.

Do you think it right it should criticise that asylum seekers may be detained for long periods without any realistic prospect of removal, breaching their right to liberty?

Yes.

Do you think it right that councils should be criticised for overlooking gypsies' "human rights" because they have failed to provide enough sites for their caravans? Isn't the whole point of being a gypsy that you travel? Aren't councils supposed to look after their borough's inhabitants, out of money paid for by those inhabitants? Just what do gypsies contribute towards that?

I'd imagine, looking at your signature, that gypsies on £10k a week probably contribute a substantial amount of tax revenue.

If, like Glasgow Rangers (or indeed Ron Martin) they don't pay tax then they should be pursued by HMRC.

You yourself say that councils are supposed to look after their borough's inhabitants. Well gypsies are inhabitants too, which I'd imagine is the point the report of the report you linked to was trying to make.

Just a few points that maybe Yorkie Blue and others may like to respond to as this was the point of the original post which so many seem to have failed to realise, and before it went off on several tangents.

Talking of which, you still haven't explained which of your human rights are being breached?

 

[callan]

Talking of which, you still haven't explained which of your human rights are being breached?

I can think of lots of times when OBL's Human rights have been breached, personally I believe that she should be afforded the same status as a gypsy or immigrant.

 

[londonblue]

Another case of Human Rights Laws failing us. Let's get rid of them now!

BBC

 

[Firestorm]

Another case of Human Rights Laws failing us. Let's get rid of them now!

BBC

The European Court found that Article 5 had not been violated , getting rid of the Human rights Bill would mean that there would be no Article 5 at all and therefore the outcome would have been exactly the same. ie there's nowt wrong with kettling

 

[Jam_Man]

Indeed that ruling showed that an attempt to use human rights for nonsense didnt work...

 

[londonblue]

The European Court found that Article 5 had not been violated , getting rid of the Human rights Bill would mean that there would be no Article 5 at all and therefore the outcome would have been exactly the same. ie there's nowt wrong with kettling

I think that's the point I was making...

 

[THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK]

I feel sorry for poor squatters. What about their human rights. There was the case when a family went on holiday and squatters broke in. When the nasty family came home, unbelievably, they wanted the squatters out. It took weeks for the squatters to be ordered to leave by the courts. No wonder the squatters trashed the place a little and nicked quite a bit.
The squatters must have been under extreme pressure with the threat of eviction.
Poor old squatters. Thank God they've got so many human rights.

 

[THE SEVENTIES NORTH BANK]

I feel sorry for poor squatters. What about their human rights. There was the case when a family went on holiday and squatters broke in. When the nasty family came home, unbelievably, they wanted the squatters out. It took weeks for the squatters to be ordered to leave by the courts. No wonder the squatters trashed the place a little and nicked quite a bit.
The squatters must have been under extreme pressure with the threat of eviction.
Poor old squatters. Thank God they've got so many human rights.

For anyone siding with squatters, take a look at this, before and after.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...m-house-left-tatters-scrounging-squatter.html