Rupert_Baehr Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 1. I can spell 'argument' correctly. 2. Please explain why Country1 has to extradite to Country2, whilst Country2 does not have to extradite to Country1. 3. Until you can, satisfactorily, please don't bother posting. Everybody is entitled to express an opinion on this forum. I have no problem with that. Some of the opinions expressed may be argumentative, occasionally offensive, stupid and just plain wrong. I have no problem with that, either - we can all screw up and I'm guilty of doing that more often than many others. Some of us are better at expressing ourselves than are others, some are 'more intelligent' (it's just a bloody number!) than others and - occasionally - some of us are so carried away with what we see as a problem that we post almost incomprehensible missives. None of that matters really. We, on this forum, are a community and like all communities, we are varied. You can't usually tell (from the username) who you're talking to. You have told us on numerous occasions that you are a solicitor. If - by 'solicitor' you mean 'somebody who solicits for certain practises' fair enough. If, however, you mean 'a person whose name is entered upon the lists held by the Master of the Rolls' then I'm amazed by your posts. There are numerous lawyers who post on this forum. I'm retired. Others aren't. You seem to make a habit of posting poorly thought out, badly argued posts on this forum. Is that an indication of the arguments your clients might expect you to propound on their behalf? Are the partners in your firm aware that you post here? Are they aware of the content of your posts? A word to the wise (from somebody who enjoys being a prat from time to time): Get a new username before you get caught. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 heres another story about human rights............not a criminal in sight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denlin Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 heres another story about human rights............not a criminal in sight That is not so Mel it's a review which shows people being abused in their own home, there's no mention of the perpetrators being prosecuted, yet again the criminal gets away with it - the law is an ass Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 That is not so Mel it's a review which shows people being abused in their own home, there's no mention of the perpetrators being prosecuted, yet again the criminal gets away with it - the law is an ass theft maybe..............depends how you define abuse, the only bit mentioned was "Physical abuse involving pushing and rough handling" She said: "Most of the girls [from the agency] were nasty. They were rough. Rather than say 'Sit in the chair', they'd push me back into the chair, that sort of thing, and I didn't like that. still its not actually on the criminals side its highlighting the problems elderly go through in care and that they SHOULD have better protection for their human rights its stillt he opposite of this thread, no matter how much its turned around Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badlittlepup Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 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" Well this thread is talking about the human rights act which was introduced in 1998. And you're just splitting hairs because you know full well that the act has wholesale changed the way it is applied and enforced which has changed the face of the entire legal system in this country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badlittlepup Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 theft maybe..............depends how you define abuse, the only bit mentioned was "Physical abuse involving pushing and rough handling" still its not actually on the criminals side its highlighting the problems elderly go through in care and that they SHOULD have better protection for their human rights its stillt he opposite of this thread, no matter how much its turned around Yes, but isn't it interesting that the human rights lawyers have been all over the criminals but have ignored the elderly? This wouldn't be because there's an awful lot of money to be made representing the crooks against the government but little to be made suing those that provide poor care for the elderly would it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
denlin Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Yes, but isn't it interesting that the human rights lawyers have been all over the criminals but have ignored the elderly? This wouldn't be because there's an awful lot of money to be made representing the crooks against the government but little to be made suing those that provide poor care for the elderly would it? I'm with you on this, the thieving gits who stole off my auntie by posing as bogus workers turned overnight from an active old lady who used to walk into town everyday from her own home into one who was bedridden in a nursing home. She couldn't get over the shock. But let's not violate their human rights:rant::rant: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sausage Dog Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 In principle we need it but it does seem to be open for abuse itself and has become a common cry for anything and everything. Surely, as with many things, it's not the Act that's the problem, but the way it's used and interpreted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badlittlepup Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Well no, it isn't interesting because it is an absurd point. Lawyers don't just decide who to take to court, they are hired by others. Lawyers pursue cases and turn them down. They can and do decide who they will take to court particularly in cases which are non-criminal like these. Look at no win no fee lawyers - human rights lawyers often pursue clients in the same way and tout for business in prisons and deportation centres. Of course lawyers don't just sit and decide which cases they are given - in many cases they actively pursue customers just like any other business and like any other business they go for the most profitable customers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Erikson Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 Wrong thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.