Human Rights Act

[RonnieP]

Why don't we get rid of it now - this instant???

Nothing to do with EU - so many folk and lawyers hide behind it...

Whilst we're at it how about getting rid of human rights Lawyers too????

[sinfony]

Cameron said he would scrap it whilst in opposition... silence since...

[davepoth]

Rights are fine; in fact all of the rights in the HRA are very good.

What we actually need is a "Human Responsibilities Act".

[Athlon]

Interfere with someones human rights, forfeit your own.

[Ozzie Osmond]

davepoth said:

What we actually need is a "Human Responsibilities Act".

^^^^^^ This.

[davepoth]

Athlon said:

Interfere with someones human rights, forfeit your own.

And that's pretty much all the new law would need to say.

[hesnotthemessiah]

davepoth said:

Athlon said:

Interfere with someones human rights, forfeit your own.

And that's pretty much all the new law would need to say.

This.

[Blib]

Ozzie Osmond said:

davepoth said:

What we actually need is a "Human Responsibilities Act".

^^^^^^ This.

Absolutely.

Those who utter the phrase, "I know me rights!" should be dealt with with the utmost severity.

[Ozzie Osmond]

hesnotthemessiah said:

davepoth said:

Athlon said:

Interfere with someones human rights, forfeit your own.

And that's pretty much all the new law would need to say.

This.

Brilliant, just brilliant.

Either "human rights" exist or they don't. You can't just pick and choose when they apply. It's like the standard PH argument that everyone should obey all the laws except that "I" feel entitled to break the speed limit whenever "I" see fit.

[davepoth]

Ozzie Osmond said:

Brilliant, just brilliant.

Either "human rights" exist or they don't. You can't just pick and choose when they apply. It's like the standard PH argument that everyone should obey all the laws except that "I" feel entitled to break the speed limit whenever "I" see fit.

No, that's not the case. The PH argument is that speed limits are in the main wrong, not that they are better than the speed limit. We have the right to complain about laws, enshrined by the Human Rights Act.

But where there is a victim of a crime, and that victim has in some way been stripped of their rights, why does the law protect the rights of the criminal?

So for example the guy who goes to rob a house and cuts himself on barbed wire. At the moment he can claim damages for his cut hand. If we suspend his human rights for the period in which he was involved in robbing, he has no claim.

Or, convicted criminals in prison. Do they deserve to vote? I don't believe they do. But it's a human right to vote (by case law) so that would mean that they should have the right to vote.

Essentially, the suspension of certain provisions of the HRA seems to me logical if it is limited to damage claims resulting from the commissioning of a criminal offence, and custodial sentences.

We all should have a responsibility to not commit criminal offences.

[davepoth]

GentleFellow said:

But essentially, you think a HRA is a good thing?

Yes, it's a great thing; the closest thing we have to a Bill of Rights, and the opportunity, through the ECtHR, to have important matters heard in a binding court outside of the UK's control. It's completely out of control now though.

[Blib]

For me, rights should be directly and irrevocably linked to responsibilities. Those towards your fellow citizens and property enshrined in accepted, legal norms within society.

Ignore those responsibilities and your 'right' to Rights would be at risk of being judicially revoked.

[singlecoil]

davepoth said:

No, that's not the case. The PH argument is that speed limits are in the main wrong, not that they are better than the speed limit. We have the right to complain about laws, enshrined by the Human Rights Act.

But where there is a victim of a crime, and that victim has in some way been stripped of their rights, why does the law protect the rights of the criminal?

So for example the guy who goes to rob a house and cuts himself on barbed wire. At the moment he can claim damages for his cut hand. If we suspend his human rights for the period in which he was involved in robbing, he has no claim.

Or, convicted criminals in prison. Do they deserve to vote? I don't believe they do. But it's a human right to vote (by case law) so that would mean that they should have the right to vote.

Essentially, the suspension of certain provisions of the HRA seems to me logical if it is limited to damage claims resulting from the commissioning of a criminal offence, and custodial sentences.

We all should have a responsibility to not commit criminal offences.

The bit that I've highlighted suggests that speeding is a victimless crime. Many would argue that it is not.

[Fer]

RonnieP said:

Whilst we're at it how about getting rid of human rights Lawyers too????

Can we have a cull?

[mondeoman]

singlecoil said:

The bit that I've highlighted suggests that speeding is a victimless crime. Many would argue that it is not.

So if I drive at 65 mph for 2 miles through open countryside and no-one sees me or is indeed within 5 miles of me, I have broken the law and there is a victim? Pray tell, who is the victim and in what way have they suffered because of my actions in this instance?

[GKP]

Human Rights clicky.

[singlecoil]

mondeoman said:

singlecoil said:

The bit that I've highlighted suggests that speeding is a victimless crime. Many would argue that it is not.

So if I drive at 65 mph for 2 miles through open countryside and no-one sees me or is indeed within 5 miles of me, I have broken the law and there is a victim? Pray tell, who is the victim and in what way have they suffered because of my actions in this instance?

I'm glad you asked me that, let me answer by asking you a question-

A person enters someone's unlocked garage and steals a lawnmower. It turns out that the owner was planning to take the lawnmower to the dump that weekend, and is doesn't mind in the slightest that someone has spared him the trouble. Is the owner of the lawnmower the victim of a crime?

[Blib]

singlecoil said:

I'm glad you asked me that, let me answer by asking you a question-

A person enters someone's unlocked garage and steals a lawnmower. It turns out that the owner was planning to take the lawnmower to the dump that weekend, and is doesn't mind in the slightest that someone has spared him the trouble. Is the owner of the lawnmower the victim of a crime?

Yes, of course he is. The two scenarios are completely different. There's no comparison to be made.

[singlecoil]

Blib said:

singlecoil said:

I'm glad you asked me that, let me answer by asking you a question-

A person enters someone's unlocked garage and steals a lawnmower. It turns out that the owner was planning to take the lawnmower to the dump that weekend, and is doesn't mind in the slightest that someone has spared him the trouble. Is the owner of the lawnmower the victim of a crime?

Yes, of course he is. The two scenarios are completely different. There's no comparison to be made.

The question is rhetorical. The two scenarios are not completely different in the context of the discussion. There certainly is a comparison to be made.

[Oilchange]

If I take stuff out of a skip without permission it's theft, so I've been told.

I would be in serious dwang if I did this at work.