'avin a laugh'

[Guinness]

Absolutely brilliant piece in the telegraph today about the Human Rights Act, kinda sums up exactly the way I feel about the way the idiots on the bench in the UK interpret what is in essence a good law twisted by the coffin chasing loophole excrement who inhabit our legal system.

The law is 'avin a laugh – but the joke is on Britain - Telegraph

[cashman]

always been the same here, by the powers that be, n were supposed to be the dummies.

[garinda]

Convicted paedophiles are to have unfettered access to their children, because not to do so would breach their human rights?

The lunatics really have taken over the asylum.

[mobertol]

Not much to laugh about in that article.
However, it only needs one brave judge to ingnore the pleadings of the "human rights" defence lawyers -that would set a precedent which the others could cite and follow.

[garinda]

That nice Nick Clegg, him that came across ever so well on the television, in those pre-election debates, is being allowed to assert his liberalism, and influence government policy.


Deputy prime minister says Liberal Democrats will not let Tories water down human rights laws.
Nick Clegg: I will refuse to let human rights laws be weakened | Politics | The Guardian

[jaysay]

Originally Posted by garinda

That nice Nick Clegg, him that came across ever so well on the television, in those pre-election debates, is being allowed to assert his liberalism, and influence government policy.


Deputy prime minister says Liberal Democrats will not let Tories water down human rights laws.
Nick Clegg: I will refuse to let human rights laws be weakened | Politics | The Guardian

We wouldn't have needed to if Tony hadn't done what he called his finest act in politics, when he signed the act, or in other words he guarantees the grave train would keep rolling by his front door long after he had disappeared over the horizon, but still allowing Ms Booth to carry on dipping her bread

[garinda]

Originally Posted by jaysay

We wouldn't have needed to if Tony hadn't done what he called his finest act in politics, when he signed the act, or in other words he guarantees the grave train would keep rolling by his front door long after he had disappeared over the horizon, but still allowing Ms Booth to carry on dipping her bread

The U.K. first signed the European Convention on Human Rights way back in 1951.

The same year Winston Churchill was re-elected, to serve a second term as Prime Minister.

No one in their right mind would deny that it was under New Labour that the 1998 Act was implemented.

It just seems a great pity that Cameron says he's trying to untangle the country fron the Human Right Act, but is to be prevented from doing so by the Deputy Prime Minister, his good chum, that nice Nick Clegg.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by garinda

It just seems a great pity that Cameron says he's trying to untangle the country fron the Human Right Act, but is to be prevented from doing so by the Deputy Prime Minister, his good chum, that nice Nick Clegg.

Thats what yeh get when yeh bed down wi a fool.

[Guinness]

Who signed us up to this is not the point, because intrinsically I believe the HRA is an excellent law. My issue is in the way our judiciary are interpreting it.

Almost all of our laws are based on the word 'reasonable', barristers argue in court cases on the interpretation of this word..

Is it reasonable to kill someone who is robbing your home... is it a 12yr old chancer because you left your door open trying to nick your PS3, or is it a 7 ft man mountain with a shotgun cutting the wires on your burglar alarm. You don't need to spend 20 years on the bench to decide this one.. you kick the seven bells out of the 12 yr old but shoot the big guy right between the eyes..reasonable, you're not guilty

The idiots on our benches, swayed by armies of afternoon 'no win no fee' bloodsuckers would interpret these cases as child abuse or murder

Ain't the law thats wrong...it's the interpreters

[cashman]

Whilst agreeing about the interpretors, i reckon it would be better to kick it in to touch, n introduce a "British Bill Of Rights" on the basis it would be far easier n no doubt cheaper than attempting to change what we got.

[Mancie]

Originally Posted by cashman

Whilst agreeing about the interpretors, i reckon it would be better to kick it in to touch, n introduce a "British Bill Of Rights" on the basis it would be far easier n no doubt cheaper than attempting to change what we got.

I would say there's no chance of changing the present laws just to suit the UK... on the other hand it would take years and maybe cost billions to draw up a Bill of Rights specific to the UK..and after all that we might still end up more or less the same laws.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by Mancie

I would say there's no chance of changing the present laws just to suit the UK... on the other hand it would take years and maybe cost billions to draw up a Bill of Rights specific to the UK..and after all that we might still end up more or less the same laws.

who knows? can't just be left as is?

[Mancie]

Originally Posted by cashman

who knows? can't just be left as is?

No it can't..as for Cameron to say he want's to "water down" the act is total rubbish and he must know that...talking big for the press and then doing nothing seems to be a vocation for Dave.

[cashman]

Originally Posted by Mancie

No it can't..as for Cameron to say he want's to "water down" the act is total rubbish and he must know that...talking big for the press and then doing nothing seems to be a vocation for Dave.

That comment is 100% accurate, done nowt but gob off n talk tough since the riots,n slowly climbing down on most things, when he finds a suitable excuse,

[garinda]

Quite a few, that have taken advantage of this Act, such as the scum who killed the Blackburn school girl in a hit and run attack, I'd argue in court don't qualify as human.