Right, the Human right act/conventions works on the basis of balance. I.e the Right of the person in relation to the right of the state/public etc. That is the very basic of how it works - that is how I was taught. Anyone who know any better can please share their views after reading this.

What prompt me to post this thread is down to an ever increasing incidents where people [criminals\terrorist] in the UK, appear to be getting away with heinous crimes as a result of respect for their human rights.  One of them is the one that happened yesterday in court:

Allow me to do a quick paraphrase. These people were arrested last year or so, and in court yesterday, the Judge categorically stated that while he is convinced that these people posed a threat to the safety of  UK public, and he is convinced that they did the crimes/terror offences they were accused off, he is however unwilling to deport them to Pakistan because they are likely to be tortured! 

These guys in question clearly were planning the murder of innocents of people, but were stopped. Yet it appears that the principle of UK - i.e not willing to deport criminals to their homeland if they are liable to torture and the Human rights convention, as a result these guys are allowed to stay!

It should be noted that 10 people were arrested in relation to this offence and 8 of them volunteered to go back home. Surely, these folks will not go back home voluntarily [8 of them] if there are chances of them been subjected to torture?

The decision to not deport these remaining two will result in millions of taxpayers money to pay for the expense in keeping them in check. Even this action may be in breach of the European convection act. I.e The member state are not allowed to restrain the movement of people if they have not done anything wrong.

This then brings me back to the thread title. I think it is about time UK as a nation pull out of these acts. Legally, we have enough rules and laws that protects the people of the land, and rules that are more or less similar to the human rights act and those from the EU.

Let's not forget, the Judge is willing to remove these folks, but he is unable to, due to the HRA.

What do you think?


Full story here.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8689439.stm


PS
Edited to remove a few typos I spotted.

This is a clear example of how the West continues to lose all and any semblance of common sense in the name of political correctness or under the unfortunate illusion of "following the law".

America does this all the time too. Trying to protect the "rights" of admitted or known terrorists. It's disgusting and an insult to law-abiding citizens everywhere. One can only hope the law of God and nature will be true for them - you reap what you sow - and may it be so for these murderers.

What prompt me to post this thread is down to an ever increasing incidents where people [criminals\terrorist] in the UK, appear to be getting away with heinous crimes as a result of respect for their human rights. One of them is the one that happened yesterday in court:

You are so right.

We are waiting for when Blair will be sent to JAIL for thousands of Iraqis he killed!

JeSoul:

This is a clear example of how the West continues to lose all and any semblance of common sense in the name of political correctness or under the unfortunate illusion of "following the law".

America does this all the time too. Trying to protect the "rights" of admitted or known terrorists. It's disgusting and an insult to law-abiding citizens everywhere. One can only hope the law of God and nature will be true for them - you reap what you sow - and may it be so for these murderers.

I think it is down to a select few in my opinion. These few are the Lawyers and those who make a living from this kind of incident. It cost millions of Tax payers money in terms of legal aid payment made to the lawyers of these people.

There have been talks from politician about us withdrawing from the whole HRA/EUHRC, but the nothing concrete have been done so far.

From my view, it appears that these laws and acts favours the criminals/terrorist than it favours the innocent and law abiding people of the land. I am also of the belief that people should lose their automatic rights once heinous crimes are involve.

otawa:

You are so right.

We are waiting for when Blair will be sent to JAIL for thousands of Iraqis he killed!

I have no problem with books been thrown at him. In my opinion, there appears to be misleading approach in the pre-war, war and after war [If there was an after war in the first place], but what ever the case, that is another debate for another day. My focus is one what I perceive as the imbalance of people's safety against that of criminals/terrorist.

ElRazur:

I think it is down to a select few in my opinion. These few are the Lawyers and those who make a living from this kind of incident. It cost millions of Tax payers money in terms of legal aid payment made to the lawyers of these people.

Pouring sand and salt on the injury. Recall the recent KSM drama of hosting his trial in NY. The cost estimates of providing security for the duration of his trial was mind boggling . . . all this for an admitted murderer? I think our fore fathers were onto something when they marched out captured killers to the gallery and hung them straight.

From my view, it appears that these laws and acts favours the criminals/terrorist than it favours the innocent and law abiding people of the land. I am also of the belief that people should lose their automatic rights once heinous crimes are involve.

Lol, tell that to the new-age liberals and their merry band of kumbaya, hand-holding, kool-aid drinking, we are the world idealists who are divorced from reality. Gosh, I cannot stand such air-headed ppl

Oh I forgot to add. Usually, suspect like this are held in house arrest once they are release. However, the EU ruled this is illegal. Hence why they will be a free man and then the Security Forces here - Police/Mi5 et al will have to keep them in their sights. As it stand, there is nothing stopping the state in the name of respecting their human rights in providing them with Houses, probably change of identity etc. All at the expense of Tax Payers money.

Sucks.

^^ makes the average person wonder if terrorism is not infact an more profitable means of earning a livelihood. Once you get caught, you're taken care of, protected by "laws", have attorneys at your service, residence, food, doctors, even electronics and laptops (as in one case last yr) all at the expense of the state. I mean why slave yourself to death when you can be high profile and have it free?

Is it possible that the judge is using the human rights act as an camouflage. It seems to me that the UK may not necessarily want to release guys into Pakistani custody as the Pakistani government may very well allow them to go back to their terror plotting ways. Why would these guys want to go back when they know the will be treated better as prisoners in the UK. They probably know they will be released upon their return home. I suspect that judge is using the human rights act as an excuse to allow them to remain where the UK government can keep a close eye on them. After all the UK hasn't been fully absorbed into the EU yet, I am sure he could have found grounds to bypass the human rights act if he really wanted to.

But seriously David Cameron will soon lose the support the rank and file of his party if continues to allow this type of thing to happen if it wasn't a set-up.

This then brings me back to the thread title. I think it is about time UK as a nation pull out of these acts. Legally, we have enough rules and laws that protects the people of the land, and rules that are more or less similar to the human rights act and those from the EU.

so you think the concept of human rights should be abolished in the UK.

if you hate the idea of people having human rights then maybe you should never have left nigeria?

just a thought.

tpia.:

so you think the concept of human rights should be abolished in the UK.

if you hate the idea of people having human rights then maybe you should never have left nigeria?

just a thought.

Please read the thread again. And consider making a valid contribution.

montelik:

Is it possible that the judge is using the human rights act as an camouflage. It seems to me that the UK may not necessarily want to release guys into Pakistani custody as the Pakistani government may very well allow them to go back to their terror plotting ways. Why would these guys want to go back when they know the will be treated better as prisoners in the UK. They probably know they will be released upon their return home. I suspect that judge is using the human rights act as an excuse to allow them to remain where the UK government can keep a close eye on them. After all the UK hasn't been fully absorbed into the EU yet, I am sure he could have found grounds to bypass the human rights act if he really wanted to.

But seriously David Cameron will soon lose the support the rank and file of his party if continues to allow this type of thing to happen if it wasn't a set-up.

Quite possibly.

Look at it this way, it cost us millions to look after them - they are like special status people. Also, don't forget that 10 of them was arrested and 8 of them volunteered to leave the UK back to Pakistan.

From a legal point of view, the hands of the Judge are really tied. As it stand, UK do not deport people to where they can be tortured etc.

While the UK may not have adopted the Euro and a few other things, it is effectively part of the Euro club and as such, we are bound by the EU law on some aspect - if not all.

In David Cameron's defence, he was the one who four years ago or so mentioned about replacing the HRA and EC HRC with a "British Bill of Rights", but then nothing have happened since. It is still early days, so let us see what will happen on his watch.

Montelik

Here is Cameron talking about the "British Bill of Rights". I think he's got a point.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5115912.stm

The Conservatives' plan to replace the Human Rights Act with a US-style Bill of Rights has been described as muddled and dangerous by the government.

Tory leader David Cameron says current legislation is inadequate and hinders the fight against crime and terrorism.

He believes a British Bill of Rights would strike a better balance between rights and responsibilities.

But the Lord Chancellor says Mr Cameron is trying to rewrite human rights because "they seem inconvenient".

In a speech to the Centre for Policy Studies in London, the Tory leader argued that the Human Rights Act had prevented Britain deporting suspected terrorists whatever the circumstances.

It was "practically an invitation for terrorists and would-be terrorists to come to Britain" he said.

The Human Rights Act has made it harder to protect our security and it's done little to protect some of our liberties
David Cameron

This is from Four years ago. Compare what he said then to what happened now, and it is hard to go against what he said.

^^^ That is exactly Cameron's potential problem. The type of positions he was taking several years in order to gain the leadership of the party, he is now beginning to abandon and if he isn't careful the rank and file of the Tory party who have given him a pass thus far, may start getting restless. Isn't this how his position regarding a referendum on the EU changed.

Soon at this rate UK will be a full fledged EU member without knowing it.

ElRazur:

Please read the thread again. And consider making a valid contribution.

how's this for a valid contribution:

Rand Paul steps back from criticism of Civil Rights Act


After an intense 24 hours, tea party darling Rand Paul — Kentucky's new Republican nominee for the Senate — is stepping back from his criticisms of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.  He tells conservative radio host Laura Ingraham that he does in fact support the historic legislation. And he tells CNN's Wolf Blitzer that he would have voted for it if he were in the Senate



http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100520/pl_ynews/ynews_pl2171