Eagle wrote:I also agree that the Human rights leglistation was probably brought in with the best intentions but it has just been a green light from the criminal fraternity to avoid just punishment. Tear it up , I agree.
Are you referring to the Human Rights Act 1998?
If so can you tell me how this gives a green light in avoiding just punishment? AFAIK the only tangible clause was the final abolition of capital punishment for treason. Don't think we have a lot of that in Sydenham Road or even the Chulsa Estate. As the last execution for any offence was in 1964 this doesn't seem at all relevant. Otherwise the Act was mostly about HR stuff being done in UK courts instead of having to go to Strasbourg. In other words it moved the court but it didn't change the 'rights'.
IANAL so I may be mistaken and I really would like to know the answers. This is why I have now asked three times.
this discussion about human rights and being prosecuted for defending yourself is laughable.
it's like a regurgitation of some of the sensationalist shit that gets passed off as journalism in the daily mail or the sun.
the kind of scum that assault and rob do not deserve the same rights as i enjoy, i agree.
however, to suggest that you will go to jail if you defend yourself against an attacker is complete crap.
if you go out hunting people with a length of steel pipe, or you defend yourself and then decide to kick the hell out of the attacker when they are on the ground then, yes, you deserve to go to jail.
use some common sense before spouting off old wives tales.
My post was meant to convey a degree of irony, hence the sentence,
"At least thats the way its perceived by the bloke in the street"
as for
"however, to suggest that you will go to jail if you defend yourself against an attacker is complete crap"
Now its you talking crap; As I know to my cost, and a skin of my teeth court case.
and
"you defend yourself and then decide to kick the hell out of the attacker when they are on the ground then, yes, you deserve to go to jail. "
Yep if some one attacks me and comes off worst and gets a bloody good hiding, tough, he alone made the decision to attack me for what ever or no reason, or maybe its his right to attack an ex Para PT Instructer.
you reap what you sow.
As for the forthcoming comments about violence not solving anything, well, I won't get trouble from the same quarter,or their pals and is it after all, better to wish violence on some scote, ie along the lines of, the circles they move inthey soon get some of it back, as is mooted elsewhere. or take the responsibility into ones own hads?
I agree Catscratch
If someone attacks an innocent member of the public and come of worse then so be it. I certainly will not show any symphathy for anyone in that situation.
Catscratch - The irony when you say "this abused piece of legislation" is that you really mean it is abused by the bloke in the street rather than criminals? This would mean you disagree with Eagle (a bloke in the street?) who says he agrees with you!
Can I ask you both to post less confusingly so we know what your real views are and when challenged are prepared to justify your position. Otherwise Lambchops and others can be easily misled into thinking you might be a couple of ill-informed scaremongerers.
The human rights act.
An excellent idea, even as someone of right wing opinion[I'm entitled] every one on this planet has a right to a decent peaceful life.
Sadly it is abused by politicians, "do gooders", the loony left, oppurtunist lawyers, and many others and yes criminals.
The "man in the street" does indeed view this act, because of these abusers as a bad thing
I think it should be torn up and discarded until the greater human rights of law abiding citizens of any background have their rights to a decent peaceful life made paramount above all else.If this means disposing of the rubbish amonst us by "legal murder" I'll lose no sleep over it. Nor I suspect, will an awful lot of others.
Sadly I do not believe that the powers that be have the moral fibre or even the will to do this.[legal murder or tear up the act]
I think that the inevitable backlash that is coming will be very nasty indeed.
Before the human rights, we had the Crown prosecution service, also full of self servers.
Some years back, My late wife was accosted in the street by 3 'yoof' who kicked our old dog, for standing his ground against these yoof.
Unluckily they did not know that I was making use of one of the few public toilets in the area, but one of them thought he would take on the old **** as I went to the aid of my wife, I don't know what he had in his hand but I broke his forearm with my walking stick[Blackthorn, I make them myself, hard as steel] the second I laid out cold, as I was taught and used to teach.The third attempted to use my wife as a shield, she being more occupied with keeping the dog from harm; so I laid into him with a will, he was still unconcious when the ambulance came.
I am a small bloke, but useful.
The police of course, did not arrive , but I was later charged with a whole raft of offences against their persons when the scrotes complained.
I should have counterclaimed for the damage to my hands.
It took a deal of clearing up.
I would do it again, to the point of scrote death if neccessary.
I claim the human right to defend me and mine.
The aftermath of the affair, and disillusionment, is what led me to sell up and move abroad to where I shall return shortly; A sensible country where the Police , on learning that I banked large sums of cash advised me to get a gun, in case.
This country too has signed the Human rights act, but uses it to defend its citizens, not oppress them.
Thats all I am going to say on this matter, as I am sure I shall offend somebody soon, and don't in any case want to get drawn further into a political harangue.
I hope I am no longer confusing anyone.
Well done Catscratch,
we need more people like you to stand up and be counted.
Personally im all for an eye for an eye, if someone hurts mine i will hurt theirs ! simple really!
Catscratch. I asked for for answers for two simple questions and how the HRA could give a green light to criminals.
What you posted does not address that, is factually incorrect, misconceived and amounts to little more than an irrelevant rant. I find it frightening that you extend this into justication for revenge violence in our community and seeking to mislead others.
Lets just keep to facts. The HRA has very little to do with CRIMINAL law. Check the significant HRA legal decisions. Those that have changed things. Everyone on the Wikipedia list refers to a CIVIL action. Mostly protecting innocent people from the abusive state power. That is nothing to do with the subject of this thread or any of the stuff featured in your diatribe. That includes the right to self defence.
So unless you can come up with a number of significant HRA decisions affecting criminal and violent activity then your arguement on this and all you justify on it is surely lost. Or show me where I am wrong.
Otherwise axing the HRA will hurt mostly innocent people. Is that what you really want?
There is indeed nothing wrong with the HRA, save perhaps that its actually a very weak piece of legislation. (as various erosions of civil liberties have demonstrated)
I challenge anyone to find objectionable words or sentiments within it. It can be read here.
As for nork1, you should report it. There is CCTV on Sydenham Road that can be reviewed and the car can be picked up on the CCTV. They are probably known to police anyway.
Paddy Pantsdown wrote:Otherwise axing the HRA will hurt mostly innocent people. Is that what you really want?
Indeed, it will just make justice less accessible for ordinary people. Human rights would still remain in law (as they have done for decades) through the ECHR, its that only the people with the time, resillience and resources will be able to access it in Strasbourg.
Great reply Annie!!!! Why should scum who care little for anything in society, hurt and kill others and dont contribute to it be subject to the same rights as those who do try and make an effort, hurt no one, and give something back into life? They had a choice to abide by the rules, if they didnt like it ot take it, then thats there problem!
We have become a nation of molly coddling individuals who think villians deserve rights and victims dont. Yep, i know its what other contributors disagree with, and you can say what you want, but i do have an opinion myself and thats it! Like it or lump it.
Personally i would tear up the HRA and withdraw from the European court, and have a seperate new Bill of Rights drawn up which actually has some purpose, and deals with the real issues.
LIfe is full of lots of shades of grey, rather than black and white like some people in, ironically, rose tinted glasses see. I have been burgled and walked in on the b******* whilst they were ransacking my house, so i know whats it like to be violated. The reason they do it is because they know the law is effectivly on there side. I cant even have barbed wire on my fence or some other deterent, in case they climb over it and hurt themselves, and therefore their human rights are violated.
I agree Sydeman.
My contention that the HRA ( if we have to have it ) should only apply to people who contribute to and show respect to society.
Should not apply to people who contribute nothing.
RIGHTS WITH RESPONSIBILITY.
Personally i would tear up the HRA and withdraw from the European court, and have a seperate new Bill of Rights drawn up which actually has some purpose, and deals with the real issues.
Please quote me the objectionable parts of the HRA1998 and please show which bits prevent robust and just punishment.
Eagle wrote:.
Should not apply to people who contribute nothing.
Who would judge whether or not an individual has contributed sufficiently, and how does one define "contribution"?
There's a lot of shouting about how terrible the HRA is, and how it benefits criminals and disadvantages individuals, but as per Bensonby's post - I'd be interested to see concrete examples of this.
If EVERYBODY follows the doctrine of 'an eye for an eye' EVERYBODY ends up blind.
Indeed. And how do you draw the line? Do you take an "eye" because someone takes the only spare seat on the train or cuts in front of you while driving? If someone breaks into your home, are you allowed to bludgeon them to death when in actual fact they are mentally impaired and never intended to do you any harm? Who defines what is and isn't allowed, and what happens in 10 years time when people start claiming that the new law still disadvantages the victims? This is very dangerous territory...
I'm giving up on this thread. It is clear that Sydeman, Eage & Annie are just trolling. They know (or haven't bothered to read) that the stuff they post is patently untrue and then use this to justify illegal gratuitous violence.
If Sydeman does as his says, which I doubt, he will get banged up by the same law as does any other criminal. It won't be the HRA. He will find the HRA won't help after conviction either. Sorry to disappoint.
The people who will send him down, ironically, will not be greedy lawyers or out of touch judges or even lentil eating Guardianistas. It will be twelve ordinary blokes & blokesses from the street. The very people he seeks to identify with. Remember Tony Martin? Jury convicted him of murder. Judges reduced it to manslaughter because of his paranoid personality disorder. It may diminish but it won't excuse you from revenge attacks.
I have several members of my family who have been attacked or threatened over the years,
one of them was my daughter who after doing a 12 hour shift was hit over the head and kicked half to death while laying on the floor bleeeding from a severe head wound! the phone call i got from the hospital at 1oclock in the morning will haunt me forever, so dont give me any crap about trolling???
as far as i am concerened i live by eye for an eye.
there is no excuse for someone to attack another, but having done so...........well they deserve all the retribution they get.
Sod what you think!!!!!
