Human Rights Act

On that, at least, we agree completely.

There is none so blind as them that will not see.

John Green

So, you concede that you have no actual evidence to back up these rather sweeping assertions of yours.

Fair enough. I can’t say I’m surprised.

More personal stuff too, I note. It really doesn’t add any strength to your argument, you know.

One doesn’t have to be acquitted to receive favourable and excessively lenient treatment before the law. The rate of acquittal doesn’t come into the argument. It is EXCESSIVELY LENIENT SENTENCING that is the problem. It is the failure to mete out a sentence to match the gravity of the crimes thereby communicating a message to all those who criminally prey on society that you can get away with it – again and again.

You keep harping on about ‘the evidence’ as though you were trying to construct a flaw in my stance. If you want to see it, the evidence is all about you. Read your daily newspaper. Watch news programs (sic) on TV Go to your local County Court and watch and listen. The evidence is there if you want to see it.

You mention your ‘merciful’ nature. That doesn’t make you anything special. Many of us have merciful instincts, but, there is a limit. If you are persistent with ‘mercy’ and ‘kindness’ as befits your nature it will often be mistaken for weakness and, human nature being what it is, you will be treated accordingly. Charity should always begin at home.

Finally, my comments are not directed exclusively against the HRA. There are plenty of our home grown crooks who benefit from the extraordinary leniency of the British judiciary although, pace the riots, that – under Govt. pressure – seems to be changing. Again, if you want evidence, check all the usual sources. It is there in abundance.

John Green

What induces apoplectic fits in the bulk of the population is when it is reported that judges almost continuously, find in favour of the perpetrator rather than the victim.

John,

If judges were almost continuously finding in favour of the perpetrator in the way in which you suggest then common sense tells us that the majority of defendants would be acquitted.

Do you have any evidence to show that this is the case?

I am by nature a merciful man, so I won’t dwell on the rather nasty xenophobic aspect of the second part of your posting. Unless, of course, you can produce evidence to show that a majority of “serial rapist/murderer/burglar/car thief/fraudsters” are not native to these shores.

Do you have any evidence to show that this is the case?

For a moment, set to one side the EXPRESS provisions of the HRA. What induces apoplectic fits in the bulk of the population is when it is reported that judges almost continuously, find in favour of the perpetrator rather than the victim.

Despite an avalanche of crimes, the perpetrator cannot be deported because sending them back to their country of origin would place them in jeopardy. GOOD. That is what most of the population wants. We want this good for nothing serial rapist/murderer/burglar/car thief/fraudster who has terrorized this overwhelmingly kind, welcoming but stupid country to receive a prolonged dose of a treatment that would persuade him of the error of his ways.

No, instead they serve a derisory sentence in this country in the equivalent of a Government run holiday camp, then released to start all over again. That is the REALITY. It is judicial interpretation that is at fault. It is the willingness even eagerness of our judges to intercede on behalf of these wicked foreign criminals that is the problem. It isn’t as though we haven’t got enough of our home grown variety.

John Green

PROTOCOL (No 7) ON THE APPLICATION OF THE CHARTER OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS TO POLAND AND TO THE UNITED KINGDOM

Article 1
1. The Charter does not extend the ability of the Court of Justice of the European Union, or any court or tribunal of Poland or of the United Kingdom, to find that the laws, regulations or administrative provisions, practices or action of Poland or of the United Kingdom are inconsistent with the fundamental rights, freedoms and principles that it reaffirms.
2. In particular, and for the avoidance of doubt, nothing in Title IV of the Charter creates justiciable rights applicable to Poland or the United Kingdom except in so far as Poland or the United Kingdom has provided for such rights in its national law.

Article 2
To the extent that a provision of the Charter refers to national laws and practices, it shall only apply to Poland or the United Kingdom to the extent that the rights or principles that it contains are recognised in the law or practices of Poland or of the United Kingdom.

😀

http://consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/cg00002re01en.pdf

Which section of the Human Rights Act says that criminals should not be punished or that law breakers must be favoured over their victims, Louise?

The problem with the Human Rights Act is that it is currently used purely and simply to allow criminals to escape punishment, and gives them more rights than the law abiding majority of this country seem to have. If there is to be a Human Rights Act it should be rewritten so that it ceases to favour law breakers over their victims.

It was neither, as you are no doubt perfectly aware.

Let me see now ! Is it ‘semantics’ or ‘some antics’. Either will do.

John Green

Well spotted (and now corrected).

I had the radio on in the background, which clearly distracted me.

That’s my excuse, anyway, and I’ll be sticking to it.

Freudian slip, GA – “servitude” for “subordinate”??:diablo: Sorry, couldn’t resist a quick return for that.:)

Alas, further misapprehension.

The ECHR has nothing to do with the EU.

It pre-dates the EU, and several signatories (and ratifiers) of the ECHR are not EU members.

Still, “in thrall and subordinate” earns you 10/10 for creative vocabulary. 😉

Sentencing is in the remit of Parliament and Parliament is in thrall and subordinate to the EU and the Human Rights Act.

QED

John Green

You appear to be mistaken again.

Sentencing policy has nothing to do with either the Human Rights Act 1998 or the ECHR.

It is the responsibility of the Lord Chancellor constitutionally, and the Justice Minister in practice. Under current arrangements, these are the same person .

These are matters of fact, not of interpretation.

I do not dignify personal jibes with a response, by the way.

Grey Area.

The ECHR is the Human Rights Act the Human Rights Act is the ECHR. It is so obvious it doesn’t have to be stated. The principal consequence of the adoption into domestic law of the ECHR/Human Rights Act in 2000 was its almost immediate impact on public consciousness where, before that date, most were – to coin your expression – ‘blissfully’ unaware.

Yes, many people object to some of its provisions. I among them. People object on the grounds that the Act stresses ‘rights’ and does not balance this with a code of responsibilities – to which you have referred – which some of us consider might have the greater importance.

The problem that causes most public angst and anger is the apparent willingness of the judiciary to uphold the rights of criminally minded individuals against the interests of the mass of the public. Nary a day goes by without some example of this being reported in the media.

I think that if you attempt to defend the indefensible rather than admitting that there are serious deficiencies with the way that our judges interpret the Act then you are inviting adverse comment regarding your critical faculty.

John Green

I find Article 14 particularly interesting, ie, Discrimination. Doe’s this mean, if I want an Operation, and it’s refused by the PCT, and a good friend of mine, needs the same Op, but lives a few miles away, and can get his Op done, is this Discrimination?.ie, the so called Post Code Lottery?.
As a member has stated, this thread is a minefield, and a money maker for the Legal Eagles to interpret the loopholes.
Jim.

Lincoln .7

Get rid of it. If something was reasonable in the first place it was already likely in UK law. The HRA seems to just be used by people who want to ignore an existing piece of legislation for their own ends.

I’ve never read or heard anyone from the ‘left’ criticising judges for being too ‘right wing’ more especially within the context of sentencing.

That does not mean that it never happens.

People tend to see what they are looking for.

IWhat is apparent from the short time that the Human Rights Act has been incorporated into British law is that that the views of the public are being ignored and consequently the safety of the public is imperilled. That is a fact that cannot be denied.

You seem blissfully unaware of the fact that the Human Rights Act 1998 merely incorporated the protocols of the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law.

The ECHR dates back to 1950, and the UK was a founding member of the Convention had a substantial say in its content.

The UK was amongst the first states to ratify the treaty (in 1953 – ie, 58 years ago) and individuals have had the right to take cases to the European Commission on Human Rights since 1966. (45 years ago.)

Even if the Human Rights Act were to be repealed, the UK would remain a signatory to the Convention and her citizens would still enjoy the protection of the very same provisions that some of you seem to find so objectionable.