|
U-Know! Forum » The Day before Tomorrow |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
thesweetcheat 6209 posts |
Jun 07, 2017, 20:19
|
||
|
We used to have a Lord Chief Justice in this country called Lord Bingham. Here's what he said about the Human Rights Act: "The rights protected by the Convention and the Act deserve to be protected because they are, as I would suggest, the basic and fundamental rights which everyone in this country ought to enjoy simply by virtue of their existence as a human being. Let me briefly remind you of the protected rights, some of which I have already mentioned. The right to life. The right not to be tortured or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The right not to be enslaved. The right to liberty and security of the person. The right to a fair trial. The right not to be retrospectively penalised. The right to respect for private and family life. Freedom of thought,conscience and religion. Freedom of expression. Freedom of assembly and association. The right to marry. The right not to be discriminated against in the enjoyment of those rights. The right not to have our property taken away except in the public interest and with compensation. The right of fair access to the country’s educational system. The right to free elections. Which of these rights, I ask, would we wish to discard? Are any of them trivial, superfluous, unnecessary? Are any them un-British? There may be those who would like to live in a country where these rights are not protected, but I am not of their number. Human rights are not, however, protected for the likes of people like me – or most of you. They are protected for the benefit above all of society’s outcasts, thosewho need legal protection because they have no other voice – the prisoners, the mentally ill, the gipsies, the homosexuals, the immigrants, the asylum-seekers, those who are at any time the subject of public obloquy."
|
|||
Locodogz 254 posts |
Jun 08, 2017, 11:02
|
||
Ah bless you
|
|||
|
Locodogz 254 posts |
Jun 08, 2017, 11:28
|
||
|
Hi Sanctuary Whatever our resident troll says I really don't want to feel I'm browbeating you here but I am genuinely curious. There are so many measures that could be put forward as potential responses to the current terrorist threat that (rightly or wrongly) would have a demonstrable impact (armed policeman on every street corner, 10,00 extra coppers etc etc) - but I genuinely don't understand what bits of the HR treaty - by being repealed ('torn up' whatever) would have any significant impact? I would be interested if you'd be happy to articulate any of the items that you feel really undermine the struggle against these idiots (that we all should be supporting)? Equally I'd understand if you don't feel like doing that in the context of the current debate/thread, but hope you do. Best
|
|||
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Jun 08, 2017, 11:41
|
||
|
Not speaking for Sanctuary but it occurs to me this might be a final populist vote catching ploy, with no major intention behind it but very successful nonetheless. Man in the street, on telly: "Great, if we're suspicious about any of them let's put them in a load of planes and send them home". No way was that intended by Theresa May, but it worked on him for one.
|
|||
|
Locodogz 254 posts |
Jun 08, 2017, 12:20
|
||
True. I've seen plenty of the 'lets deport them all' rhetoric, but much less of the 'where to, exactly' explanation....
|
|||
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Jun 08, 2017, 12:32
|
||
|
Try reading the comments that follow this article and hear what you don't want to hear. See what the public think in numbers, not just me here on my Jack Jones battling against some of you. My country comes first, fuck the terrorists. Decent people won't be affected as everyday common sense should tell you that any 'changes' she makes to the HR laws will have additions that deals with the problem without affecting others rights. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/amnesty-uk-hits-theresa-may-reckless-pledge-change-human-rights-laws-095652290.html This thread was wondering if party leaders were going to come out with a killer blow to win the election at the last moment. Theresa May who has been criticised for not being strong enough during the canvassing was keeping her powder dry until that last moment has done just that. The others sad nothing and she may win this election because of it. Have you read the polls this morning? The swing has gone in the Conservatives direction at the last moment - even YouGov have had to admit that after their false daily reporting. And the most interesting bit - the Manchester and London attacks didn't alter the result of the daily polls immediately after them. That is really odd I would have thought and not sure what that indicates. Anyway read those comments...
|
|||
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Jun 08, 2017, 12:38
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: Try reading the comments that follow this article and hear what you don't want to hear. See what the public think in numbers, not just me here on my Jack Jones battling against some of you. My country comes first, fuck the terrorists. Decent people won't be affected as everyday common sense should tell you that any 'changes' she makes to the HR laws will have additions that deals with the problem without affecting others rights. https://uk.news.yahoo.com/amnesty-uk-hits-theresa-may-reckless-pledge-change-human-rights-laws-095652290.html This thread was wondering if party leaders were going to come out with a killer blow to win the election at the last moment. Theresa May who has been criticised for not being strong enough during the canvassing was keeping her powder dry until that last moment has done just that. The others sad nothing and she may win this election because of it. Have you read the polls this morning? The swing has gone in the Conservatives direction at the last moment - even YouGov have had to admit that after their false daily reporting. And the most interesting bit - the Manchester and London attacks didn't alter the result of the daily polls immediately after them. That is really odd I would have thought and not sure what that indicates. Anyway read those comments... Here are those poll results.... https://uk.yahoo.com/news/general-election-polls-latest-tracker-110810042.html
|
|||
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Jun 08, 2017, 12:56
|
||
|
Sanctuary wrote: Anyway read those comments... Here are those poll results.... https://uk.yahoo.com/news/general-election-polls-latest-tracker-110810042.html[/quote] Well, just got back from the Poling Station (after voting Conservative). No other voters there so asked one of the officials if they’d been busy. “Steady” was his reply. Also asked a couple of people in town if they’d voted. One said no the other said he wasn’t going to bother. Could be the turnout is going to be low (cold and wet up here in North Yorkshire) but who knows.
|
|||
|
thesweetcheat 6209 posts |
Edited Jun 08, 2017, 13:03
Jun 08, 2017, 12:58
|
||
|
"Decent people won't be affected as everyday common sense should tell you that any 'changes' she makes to the HR laws will have additions that deals with the problem without affecting others rights." Or, the "If you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to fear" argument that has been used for decades by right wing regimes as they remove basic human rights from their citizens. You presumably disagreed with the quotes from Lord Bingham that I posted earlier, and the position taken by Amnesty International. I know you don't like to hear the views of experts, but here's the view of former Director of Public Prosecutions Kier Starmer, who has been directly involved in prosecuting terrorists - something that I assume none of us, nor of those commenting on your Yahoo article, have done: “There is no incompatibility between protecting human rights and taking effective action against terrorists,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. “If we start throwing away our adherence to human rights in response to what has happened in the last three months, we are throwing away the values at the heart of the democracy,everything that we say we believe in.” Starmer said he had never found human rights law a barrier to successful prosecutions of terrorists or those preparing acts of terrorism. “I know because I did it for five years,” he said. “We did not run into the Human Rights Act as a problem preventing successful prosecutions. We put a lot of people away for a very long time.” https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jun/07/keir-starmer-uk-human-rights-law-does-not-prevent-capture-of-terrorists Edited for formatting
|
|||
|
thesweetcheat 6209 posts |
Jun 08, 2017, 12:59
|
||
Particularly the ones born in Essex or wherever.
|
| Pages: 5 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| U-Know! Forum Index | |
