ARE WE LETTING THE HUMAN RIGHTS BILL GO TO FAR

  ilw 23:45 27 Jan 08
Locked

This is a CLICKY subject BUT can anyone second me in thinking this human rights bill is & has gone TOO far to the extreme that its looking silly in parts

just two examples recently:

click here

click here

& although the second one may not be TOTALY related to the human rights bill its certainly close, is the bill realy working i mean is it sensible it was only a couple of days ago we had a issue about: Telegraph it is reported that France will not let border guards in Calais use X-Rays to search for illegal immigrants in lorries unless they get written permission from the stowaways/immigrants...??????????
France claims it violates European health and safety laws...

  Forum Editor 00:05 28 Jan 08

it irritates people.

Neither of the threads you link to are related to human rights matters. Worrying about causing offence to Muslims isn't a human rights thing, it's a racial equality issue.

Putting out signs about wet floors is a health and safety issue - nothing to do with human rights.

Ensuring that all people are afforded their basic human rights is incredibly important. The European Convention on Human Rights was drafted just after the second world war, and Britain was one of the first countries to sign up to it. In fact we were heavily involved in drafting it.

Our current Human Rights act came into force in 1998, and was really drafted in order to reinforce the provisions of the European Convention - obviously circumstances are different now, compared to fifty years ago.

Some of the rights contained in the European Convention are very powerful - the right to life, the right to liberty and security, the right to a fair trial, the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. All of these are extremely important, and it's not possible to run a truly civilised society without them.

  Blackhat 00:18 28 Jan 08

My thread on the Three little pigs relates only to the attitudes towards political correctness and has no relation to human rights. One response to the thread mentioned human rights and is just one persons opinion. Your topic may be valid but your context is not.

  lofty29 09:28 28 Jan 08

It is not the human rights legislation in principle that is at fault, it is the fact that the wording is badly drafted, which leaves it open to shyster lawyers to use it for making bucketloads of money out of it.

  Quickbeam 10:42 28 Jan 08

you need to know about 'human rights'...

If you abide by the law, you should qualify for them.
If you don't abide by the law, shouldn't qualify for them.

  spuds 13:11 28 Jan 08

Its strange really when 'our' basic Human Rights are involved.

I once had a real heavy argument with our local council, regarding what they could or could not do, in respect of UK laws, guidelines and human rights. Reading various public literature plus government hand-outs, and quoting paragraphs from some of these publications didn't make the slightest difference. I suppose it all came down to legal costs of taking matters further, and who had the deepest pockets!.

  lofty29 13:23 28 Jan 08

spuds
Or if you had a funny handshake

  anskyber 14:24 28 Jan 08

I've read some pretty silly statements here before now but "If you don't abide by the law, shouldn't qualify for them." certainly is up there with the best.

The whole point is a civilised society is based upon the key notions of civil rights including the right to a fair trial. Please do not complain about the mistreatment of people in other countries if you consider imprisonment without a trial (for not abiding by the law of that country)is acceptable.

Even after a fair trial a civilised society is seen by the way it delivers the punishment and if it fits the crime. I am very pleased I live in a country with an excellent human rights record, certainly when compared to just about every other country I know.

  Forum Editor 17:54 28 Jan 08

Perhaps you'll provide us with a couple of examples (or even one) of how the wording of our Human rights act is badly drafted, allowing "shyster lawyers to use it for making bucketloads of money out of it"

  Forum Editor 17:56 28 Jan 08

I'm having trouble understanding how anyone with a grain of sense could possibly believe that if you don't abide by the law you should be denied your human rights.

Surely you can't seriously think that way?

  Quickbeam 01:07 29 Jan 08

"Surely you can't seriously think that way?"

No, not all the time... but when I read in the papers of law abiding peoples rights being sidelined at the expense of law breakers rights I get immensely infuriated... as you may have noted on occasion.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Surface Pro 5 News - release date, UK price, features, specs

Microsoft Surface Studio hands-on review: the iMac killer is here

Best Mac antivirus 2017