human rights pi$$ boiler

[wiggy001]

caelite said:

wiggy001 said:

TwistingMyMelon said:

Heard it dawn tha pub - must bee tru innit

What about if you read it in a national newspaper?

It's the Daily Mail though... I think I would have more faith in the pub story.

There are plenty of stories around of squatters than cannot be evicted from other people's property, so it's not beyond the realms of possibility that this story is true.

Simple fact is, if to are in someone else's home, or have stolen someone else's motorhome/caravan and are apparently living in it, you should have exactly 30 seconds to get out before being forcibly removed, charged and punished. No ifs, no buts.

[romeogolf]

esxste said:

Human Rights is blamed like Health and Safety is for things that actually it doesn't prevent.

Like when people say "you can't do that because of Health and Safety", what they actually mean is, "we can't be asked to do a risk assessment" or "we did a risk assessment, and can't afford/won't do the things required to respond to an identified risk". But thats to complicated for some and it becomes "cos 'elf 'n safety innit"



I'd suggest the issue here is that he police know it would be a major operation to recover the stolen assets, that it would damage relations, whatever state they're currently in, with that community and its blamed on Human Rights for those who like simple answers.

Correct. If anyone ever says they can't do something because of "Human Rights" I'll always be suspicious unless they can identify which of the articles would be contravened. For those curious, these are the 12 rights:

(1) Right to Life
(2) Prohibition of Torture
(3) Prohibition of Slavery & Forced Labour
(4)Right to Liberty & Security
(5) Right to a Fair Trial
(6) No Punishment Without Law
(7) Right to Respect for Family Life
(8) Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion
(9) Freedom of Expression
(10) Freedom of Assembly
(11) Right to Marry
(12) Prohibition of Discrimination

[vkcs22]

The justice system is a joke in the UK. Criminals have it really easy with those 2 star prisons with Sky, physical exercise and healthy meals. If you defend your property against those thieving meat flaps, you will mostly likely be prosecuted and lets not forget all the legal aid they get. If only they would bring back torture and the death penalty.

[dudleybloke]

Change the law to class feral thriving scum as sub-human.

[Dindoit]

Please nobody question the validity of this. This 100% happened as described. We've definitely been given the full story. The police were all there with tasers and dog units but the travellers shouted "Human Rights!" out of the window and so they all gave up and went back to the station.

It doesn't sound anything like a Facebook "Share if you agree" tall tale. I'm completely convinced it's true.

[Atomic12C]

Mrr T said:

There do appear to be some material differences between the stories.

I think they are similar cases but not the same 'incident'.
The 'story' I have been told happened last week and involved a new motorhome and not a caravan.
(Couldn't see any typical PH evidence, in the form of a weblink, to support it though).

So its just a case of take it or leave it. (Sorry)

[Mrr T]

wiggy001 said:

There are plenty of stories around of squatters than cannot be evicted from other people's property, so it's not beyond the realms of possibility that this story is true.

Simple fact is, if to are in someone else's home, or have stolen someone else's motorhome/caravan and are apparently living in it, you should have exactly 30 seconds to get out before being forcibly removed, charged and punished. No ifs, no buts.

Please find me a link to a true story about a squatter who cannot be removed.

I think you will struggle to find one.

Squatter can always be removed it may take time and money but that’s a different matter.

As for the case your mate down the pub made up. There a bit of a difference between the police following the caravan to the site and people jumping into it and police finding it 11 months later with people living in it.

So let’s say you buy a mobile home without knowing its stolen. You start to live in it. The police turn up and throw you and your kids out on the streets?

[Mrr T]

dudleybloke said:

Change the law to class feral thriving scum as sub-human.

Some PH posts make you wonder if the poster has any sense of irony.

[Eric Mc]

dudleybloke said:

Change the law to class feral thriving scum as sub-human.

That'll work. You can't have human rights if you are not a human. Of course, you might have the RSPCA down on you like a ton of bricks.

[del mar]

Eric Mc said:

dudleybloke said:

Change the law to class feral thriving scum as sub-human.

That'll work. You can't have human rights if you are not a human. Of course, you might have the RSPCA down on you like a ton of bricks.

Are we that far away from extending the idea of "rights" to animals ?

[Eric Mc]

They already do have some rights - which is fine by me.

[wiggy001]

I'm not saying it is the case, but can you not entertain the possibility that in the OPs story one or more of those I've highlighted in blue could be used by those savvie enough?

romeogolf said:

Correct. If anyone ever says they can't do something because of "Human Rights" I'll always be suspicious unless they can identify which of the articles would be contravened. For those curious, these are the 12 rights:

(1) Right to Life
(2) Prohibition of Torture
(3) Prohibition of Slavery & Forced Labour
(4)Right to Liberty & Security
(5) Right to a Fair Trial
(6) No Punishment Without Law
(7) Right to Respect for Family Life
(8) Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion
(9) Freedom of Expression
(10) Freedom of Assembly
(11) Right to Marry
(12) Prohibition of Discrimination

[wiggy001]

Mrr T said:

Please find me a link to a true story about a squatter who cannot be removed.

I think you will struggle to find one.

Squatter can always be removed it may take time and money but that’s a different matter.

Agreed, and that could very well be the case in the OP's story. However, I disagree that, in an ideal world, it should take more than 30 seconds after determining ownership.

Mrr T said:

As for the case your mate down the pub made up. There a bit of a difference between the police following the caravan to the site and people jumping into it and police finding it 11 months later with people living in it.

Not my mate, not my story.

Mrr T said:

So let’s say you buy a mobile home without knowing its stolen. You start to live in it. The police turn up and throw you and your kids out on the streets?

Afraid so. Caveat Emptor.

[Eric Mc]

wiggy001 said:

Afraid so. Caveat Emptor.

I don't think so.

[Rovinghawk]

dudleybloke said:

feral thriving scum

They actually do quite well for themselves.

[wiggy001]

Eric Mc said:

wiggy001 said:

Afraid so. Caveat Emptor.

I don't think so.

You don't think it is the case, or should be the case?

To clarify, I know it is not the case but it definitely should be.

If you cannot take reasonable steps to ensure that your home is not stolen then you shouldn't be buying it!

[Atomic12C]

wiggy001 said:

If you cannot take reasonable steps to ensure that your home is not stolen then you shouldn't be buying it!

WTF?

You are at fault purely because others wish to break/ignore the law?

Basically if somebody wants to steal something then it comes down to how much they want to do it. If that desire is strong then I would hazard a guess there is nearly feck all one can do to stop them.

So what is 'reasonable' when a theft can be described as a certainty to happen?

[Mrr T]

wiggy001 said:

Eric Mc said:

wiggy001 said:

Afraid so. Caveat Emptor.

I don't think so.

You don't think it is the case, or should be the case?

To clarify, I know it is not the case but it definitely should be.

If you cannot take reasonable steps to ensure that your home is not stolen then you shouldn't be buying it!

So what are reasonable steps?

[TooMany2cvs]

wiggy001 said:

I'm not saying it is the case, but can you not entertain the possibility that in the OPs story one or more of those I've highlighted in blue could be used by those savvie enough?

romeogolf said:

Correct. If anyone ever says they can't do something because of "Human Rights" I'll always be suspicious unless they can identify which of the articles would be contravened. For those curious, these are the 12 rights:

(1) Right to Life
(2) Prohibition of Torture
(3) Prohibition of Slavery & Forced Labour
(4)Right to Liberty & Security
(5) Right to a Fair Trial
(6) No Punishment Without Law
(7) Right to Respect for Family Life
(8) Freedom of Thought, Conscience, and Religion
(9) Freedom of Expression
(10) Freedom of Assembly
(11) Right to Marry
(12) Prohibition of Discrimination

No.

It wouldn't be discrimination to kick anybody out of a stolen motorhome, no matter what their background or ethnicity or whatever.
Nobody's stopping them from having a family life - just not in a stolen motorhome.
Nobody's imprisoning them without a trial.

B'sides, all of those are tempered with exceptions in the interest of law enforcement, basically - which would certainly count in this kind of apocryphal homework case. Here's the actual convention wording - remember, the HRA98 only allows UK courts to prosecute breaches, instead of having to go to the European court. And the UK's been a signatory since 1953...
http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.p...

[Eric Mc]

wiggy001 said:

Eric Mc said:

wiggy001 said:

Afraid so. Caveat Emptor.

I don't think so.

You don't think it is the case, or should be the case?

To clarify, I know it is not the case but it definitely should be.

If you cannot take reasonable steps to ensure that your home is not stolen then you shouldn't be buying it!

The key difference is the word "home".

The law is reluctant to throw people out on the street, especially families with children. Even if someone has acquired a residential property (mobile or fixed, illegally, deliberately or inadvertently), the legal process will not include automatic eviction until adequate provision for accommodation has been provided.

If the stolen item is a lawnmower or a tin of beans, the legal procedures will be different.