₦airaland Forum

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.

Otawa, one key point you are missing. I am not exactly arguing, but merely presenting an alternative view point. I am not trying to prove anything or argue for or against anything. However, I am asking us to look at things from a different view.

Something that keeps going above your head.

Meh. Some things will never change, not matter how much we try to introduce a different approach I guess.

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.

luizworld:
ok big daddy. . . i am evrywhere. if u a ready i can fly 2 d UK to take lessons.
oya see one of your iyawo don land

Keep Pweet4me for now. But she is mine though.

luizworld:
oh great one. . please show me the way. i wanna be like you.

Where you dey? UK or Naija? Make I know how to charge you accordingly and adjust for fluctuations.


PS
Call me Big Daddy.

odiaero_:
@ElRazur, how far?

I'm good o. How are you?

Me I dey wash carpet and then rearranging my room sha. And you?

TOPE2000!:
Husband number 5, how is u?? Lol

Welcome back. Have a look at my "recommend me a wifey" thread. I think you will find that I have moved on. I now have several offers, but I am weighing my options. Pweet4me, odunnu and one mamiwater gal like that.

Moral of the story? Next time, no go away without letting me know.

dayokanu:
A relative of 9ice.

Who?

madlady:
I really respect her.

With this statement above, I can officially say - Welcome to our Romance section, annual kiss-arse conference. Today, it is Iice's backside we will be kissing.

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.

Afam:
I will never agree to be wrong just to justify a wrong position you may have taken.

When I am wrong I will admit it, certainly not before.

When 2 people fight it is almost impossible for the 2 people to be guilty for the fight so stop trying to defend what cannot be defended - all parties are equally guilty - it will not work.

I understand that, and do see your reasons for doing so.

The same stance have been shared since the time of David and Goliath, and it still carries on today. Stance like this in my opinion is yet to achieve peace. May be it is time for a different approach?

Ikomi:
Honestly I cant believe you think you are making sence in this blind argument of yours.

You are Pro nothing. I have Jewish friends who would immediately tell you to shut up with this kind of cheap defence.

Go and be Pro your hometown, am sure they would give you high position as one of the greatest idiots they produced.

Okay sir. 

You are the proverbial White man who screams "Nigger" at every opportunity, claims Slave trade era is justifiable, and then claim to have black men as friends. Nice.

Ikomi:
Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

What has morality got to do with the argument, its a move to save face, that guy is talking high level baloney.

This is not about saving face. I made a thread to get the right response, in order to make a point.

My original post hinted at "waiting for responses" etc. I also left till you and others to post in order to make that very point. Also, my original post talked about "Balance".


Swap your original respose around and in the eyes of Israel, they are doing what they see as legal and to protect themselves; Claim back land they perceived as theirs etc While making plenty of innocent people suffer as a direct and indirect result.


I know you probably see me as Pro Israel/Zion/West etc, but you may need to re-evaluate that.

@Afam

Once again, you are missing the point.

Hamas on this occasion have done exactly what Israel do to Palestine. That and that only is the point I was aiming at making.

Like I mentioned to you in the other thread, both sides are guilty. And I am of the belief that heaping blame on one side will not achieve anything in real life. Just the same way how blaming each sides on this forum, or taking sides on this forum lead to endless bickering over who is wrong and who is right, while the people concerned continues to suffer.

Your post have done nothing but continue the blame game.

RSA:
I guess so, The kind of people who hangs around this site are capable of sending this useless messages

Dude, very nice.

Most people who hang around here are Nigerians mostly, and given your statement above, I guess your notion is that we are most likely fraudulent right? I have no problem with that. However, do not moan once the crime in your country is being published in UK media again, or how HIV is killing your people.

You see, it is not a nice thing to make statement that suggest generalisation, or at least sweeping notion. 

Who do you think he/she/it is?

No takers?

Meh, is this is about having seeexxx and how I want a wifey, I am sure I will get more decent response. Come on people, can we not engage in a bit of serious debate around here?

And bang! The trilogy is complete.

I think this was made to guage responses like I said before, and clearly it appears we have the same old wines posting what they really taste like.

From my observation, there is no single proof that the land are even illegal - despite what is being reported etc. - but that is not what I'm about. My point is to point at what both sides do to innocent people. I do not support Israeli action, or what Hamas are doing to the same people who put them in power.

I mean, take Ikomi's response for example, you make a partly valid point, but then the same point is valid from the view point of Israel. And this is what I have been about lately. I.e. refusing to take sides and just try and view it from a neutral point of view, but it appears my attempt at pointing this out just went over the head of those who have responded so far.

Still on the issue of Hamas, bulldozing buildings etc. I mean, one can present a point that Palestine is reported to be the biggest refugee camp in the world, so how is demolishing the homes of fellow palestine by hamas meant to help? Let us approach thing from a moral point of view for a second. It is reported that there are several blockage and embargo placed on these areas by Israel, and as such building materials are regulated in a tight manner. Surely, the little shelter these people can put together out of their own sweat and blood should be left alone? No?  Morally, Hamas acted wrong here.


I mean, Israel do the same thing, but I wonder how many of those who appears to do nothing but take sides see that Hamas is basically doing the same thing? 

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.

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.

Igwe.:
I quite agree with you in the sense that the wife shouldn't be submissive to a good for nothing husband who does not know his left and right, only to drink and cause troubles here there, but why would any sensible woman marry such a man at first if not for a reason best known her of which she lives to regret at last?

Again your post will suggest you are still wanting a submissive woman. Regardless of whether a husband is good for nothing or excellent with everything, a woman should not be submissive. A slave is submissive to the will of his master. Just the same way mankind submit to the will of God. You see, a woman is neither a slave nor a man is a God, and as such, a woman should not be doing any form of submission - especially, not in the context it is used in Nigerian and African cultures.

submissive in this contest to me is nothing but the readiness for the wife to see her husband as king, the head of the family, listens to him when he is talking irrespective of who makes more money in the family, projects his name even when she's more intelligent than he's.

For you maybe, but from what I read here, from what I have seen, from what it is ingrained into us, I think you will have to agree that submission = submitting to the will of others.

For the record, a man is not a king, while he may be the Father in the family, or the male in a relationship, it do not make him superior in anyway to a woman and as such his will should not be the only one that supersede everything, as a woman have mind, need, will, emotion etc too.

People would rather respect a woman for the husband's wealth or his personality than the man for the wife's what have you.

I don't understand.

We only have one head in every family and that's the man, the success of any marriage chiefly depends on the man who's deemed as the head of the family,while the wife/wives is/are just there to assist .

No it is an archaic way of thinking. A man is no longer the "head". As without a woman, a man is nothing. A relationship have two people at the wheel just like you have two pilots at the control of a plane. You see, the world have moved on from those kind of view in my position.

Again you raised an important issue here - equality. Why is it okay for a man to have many wives, but not okay for a woman to do the same legally? I think if you can find an answer to that, I will be waiting. Whatever is good for the Goose, is good for the Gander too.

luap:
Dear Mr. Atheist,  Both men and woman must fulfill their gender functions in a relatoinship or they will be unhappy.  I you do not believe me, go put on an apron, do some cooking and give the wife a foot massage.  In time she will be disgusted with the big kitty between your legs and she will go out and find a real man on the side to make her happy.

What do you mean gender functions? So if woman opt to have a career and not have kids, you think she would be unhappy? Or conversely, if a man who stays at home to look after the kids at his own will, while the wife goes to work would be unhappy? Surely, you can see the problem with your logic?

For your information, I cook good and damn good at it, and I have no problem whatsoever cooking for whoever I am dating. I have done it before. It is called "helping around the house". A concept that may be foreign to you as you may not have had a place of your own, or lived with a woman before. When you get to the point in your life, try cooking once in a while and see how appreciative she will be of you. It takes nothing away from you. If anything, it adds a romantic spice to your relationship. Just ask any female.

What strike me here is the observation of two elements.

When men are challenged about wanting submissive woman, they either quote the bible or some religious book to back it up. Then when that is challenged, they result to saying what they want is respect.

Let me tackle this one. Can the men who have such stance quit fooling themselves. Respect is not the same being submissive. They mean two different and it appears men will use them interchangeably to back up their indefensible view points. I am trying not to talk about the holy books like some are keen to quote, for very good reason. The holy books were written a long time a go, and not be honest human have moved on from those points. So please, avoid quoting the holy books as I will just not comment on them.

When men talk about Submission around here. It means, one thing and one thing only a woman who they can be dominated over in most places. For example, my own sister will answer "Yes sir" to her husband. I mean, wtf is this about? Surely, she wasn't saying "Yes sir" to him when he was chasing her. If anything, she calls him by his name, but as time goes by, it appears there is more submission going on, than respect.

Another thing that I observe is how some females reply will suggest that have become brainwashed, or have ingrained into them that they have to be submissive. There appears to be a mentality of "acceptance" i.e well, it is what is expected of me as a woman or what the holy books have said and as such, I will do it without asking question". I mean, this is no different from those who think it is expected of them to kill infidels etc. I suppose these kind of females can do with trying to be who they are, than being what they is drilled in to them.

Add ElRazur to the list.

My dad saw the potentials, and he wasn't bothered about it. However, I get the odd smack when I give him stuff with my left had. As time goes by, he just did not bothered.

I love using my left hand.  Feels different from the "norm" [Right hand]

The reason it is frowned upon back home is probably a culture that comes from belief. I.e Sitting on the right hand of God = Good and left hand means bad or something along those lines. Also Right is associated with "light" while left is apparently synonymous with "darkness".

Finally, in Yoruba culture, one is meant to clean/wipe their butt with left hand. So I suppose it is just a way of enforcing hygiene in a crude way.

Anyone who is left handed should be left alone jare. Most of us are creative with arts and can have a taste for flair writing. In fact, anything that is creative as already pointed out.

rhymz:
Cyber-prowlers like the goon that callz himself Elrazu who bandy gibberish like he eats brain tumour. . .When was the last time anyone had a decent conversation on this forum?

At least if you want to call me a Goon, try to spell my name right. It is ElRazur and not what you have up there.

Finally, if you want to make a decent conversation, come over to politics - I hang around there for serious discussion - or better still, post your thoughts in this thread here. [See link]. It will be interesting to see what you can come up with.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-446989.0.html

It is funny. Just as I expected.

For years, Palestinians have criticized Israel for destroying houses, mostly because they were built without permits issued by the military. Now, Rafah residents complained, their own government, run by the Islamic militant Hamas that seized power in Gaza in July 2007, has done the same.

"They promised reform and change — instead they've destroyed our homes," shouted Miasar Gan, a 54-year-old woman. Gan said she and her husband had nowhere else to go.

"I found my mattress, and that's where I'll be sitting," she said, standing next to the concrete chunks — all that was left of her house.

Her neighbor, Nazira Abu Jara, 56, said policewomen wearing face veils typical of conservative Muslim women beat her with clubs until she fled her house with her husband and two children. "Neighbors help us get by with charity. We can't afford to build again," Abu Jara said.

Others picked through rubble to retrieve dusty clothing and mangled furniture.

Residents said between 30 and 40 homes were torn down, ranging from concrete structures to tin shacks. They did not know how many people were affected. Hamas officials did not allow reporters into the area until the demolition was over.

Residents said more demolitions in the area were expected Monday.

Hamas is clearly doing a fine job.

toba:
hes not bound by the law of a country where he resides, Isnt absurd? or does he think hes above the Nigerian laws

How obvious do you want him to get?