bongo_fish Posted November 22, 2011 Author Share Posted November 22, 2011 its something weve set ourselves higher than other countries tho, we have put ourselves on a pedestal and pride ourselves on being more humane and civilised than others. its not something we can pick and choose tho we dont hang people anymore or torture people so the thinking is why send people back to countries that do? does that put a black mark next to our civilised and more humane nature? does that lower ourselves to their level? Anybody who commits that kind of crime deserves to hang for the highest tree why should it be our problem? who do you think is paying for this legal battle? you are paying for it you work hard to protect criminals for getting the justice they deserve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 But, again, reciprocity. Any citizen or foreign national resident in the UK has a right to use the Act in their favour and as said before it may be that he is still returned to face charges in the US. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Penistone999 Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 would we all get closer to being victims of the state? Id cut out the mind bending drugs if i was you , they are making you paranoid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffrey Shaw Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 You're right. Reciprocity cuts both ways (of course). If the USA won't extradite its citizens to stand trial in the UK, the UK should not extradite British subjects to stand trial in the USA. But the UK should extradite British subjects to stand trial in other countries if it expects those other countries to extradite their citizens to stand trial in the UK. And that's even more so if it's a question of the UK extraditing non-British subjects to their home countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fruitisbad Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Countries are always funny when it comes to extradition, they seem to view it as an insult to their justice system. Using this to take a swipe at human rights legislation is a bit weak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badlittlepup Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 the thing is people say we dont need it, what would happen if we didnt have it? would it make US ALL more succeptable to abuse? would we all get closer to being victims of the state? But what happened BEFORE we had it? I can't particularly remember all these terrible cases that happened where peoples human rights were so badly infringed this act was desperately needed. There wasn't exactly a clamour for it was there? In fact after the abuses of the police in the 70s and early 80s we were doing rather well at legislating against human rights abuses within our existing set of laws. There was just no need for it. It was too vague and has lead to a judicial dictatorship as it's so woolly judges can interpret it almost any way they like and they can and are using it to overule the wishes of a democratically elected parliament. Not just in deportation cases but in privacy cases where it's being used to gag the press. If there was something wrong with the deportation laws it could have been dealt with by legislation voted for by democratically elected members of parliament within the pre existing structure rather than an unelected unaccountable judiciary making it up as they went along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denlin Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Human rights are there for the criminal in this country, they are not there for the victim of that crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElasticMan Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 But what happened BEFORE we had it? I can't particularly remember all these terrible cases that happened where peoples human rights were so badly infringed this act was desperately needed. There wasn't exactly a clamour for it was there? In fact after the abuses of the police in the 70s and early 80s we were doing rather well at legislating against human rights abuses within our existing set of laws. There was just no need for it. Wrong. We have been bound by the European Convention on Human Rights since 1951. The Human Rights Act incorporated it into UK Law. This means UK Judges can now rule on the Act, rather than having to go the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. It was drafted by a British MP and Lawyer, "to incorporate a traditional civil liberties approach to securing "effective political democracy", from the strongest traditions in the United Kingdom, France and other member states of the fledgling Council of Europe" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 1: attack the arguement not the poster 2: i already have 3: **** off Game, set and match to Mr Shaw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murphy Jnr Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Human rights are there for the criminal in this country, they are not there for the victim of that crime. They're there for the protection of all but it doesn't stop anyone violating those rights. Hopefully when it goes wrong the justice system can put it right. I know, it doesn't always. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.