shocking abuse of human rights
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
exitstageright  London 17 Mar 16 10.43am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Or just occasionally attempt to pass legislation that's then defeated in the commons. The problem of incompatibility, is that the two aren't incompatible; I think it would be very difficult to construct a reasonable argument as to why prisoners cannot have some access to enfranchisement, that couldn't be countered effectively. Aren't they suffering enough with lack of moisturiser without having to put up with Jeremy Corbyn knocking on their cell-doors canvassing for votes?
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| exitstageright London 17 Mar 16 10.45am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
You could read the news accounts of the hearing. He's been kept in segregation from all other prisoners, apparently denied reasonable communication, visitation and effectively suffered as a result of being in an effective solitary confinement. This his lawyer claims, amounts to a failure to meet several human rights (as well as conditions of the prison service in Norway). So you haven't seen his application either, so moisturiser and not hot enough coffee could be his primary complaints for all you know.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 17 Mar 16 11.18am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by exitstageright
So you haven't seen his application either, so moisturiser and not hot enough coffee could be his primary complaints for all you know. No, because they wouldn't be sufficient for a case to be heard, as access to those wouldn't violate human rights, as they aren't an article of the 1998 act.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| exitstageright London 17 Mar 16 11.29am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
No, because they wouldn't be sufficient for a case to be heard, as access to those wouldn't violate human rights, as they aren't an article of the 1998 act. Do you mean to tell me that the right to moisturiser is not in the Human Rights Legislation! Shocking. Has Jeremy Corbyn been told? To signal his solidarity,I'm sure he would want to attend the mass-demonstrations that are bound to take place once this gets out. "What do we what?", "E45", "When do we want it?", "When we are serving a prison sentence for mass-murder!".
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Superfly The sun always shines in Catford 17 Mar 16 11.43am |
  |
|---|---|
|
My spidey senses are tingling. Has somebody stuck a pony in their pocket?
Lend me a Tenor 31 May to 3 June 2017 John McIntosh Arts Centre with Superfly in the chorus |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| Stuk Top half 17 Mar 16 1.32pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by exitstageright
Do you mean to tell me that the right to moisturiser is not in the Human Rights Legislation! Shocking. Has Jeremy Corbyn been told? To signal his solidarity,I'm sure he would want to attend the mass-demonstrations that are bound to take place once this gets out. "What do we what?", "E45", "When do we want it?", "When we are serving a prison sentence for mass-murder!". Neutrogena more like.
Optimistic as ever |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Deabo2030 Ipswich. Suffolk 17 Mar 16 3.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
In reply to jamiemartin721: So in a nutshell, I can do what I want and the state is responsible! Sometimes I wonder what happened to this Great Nation. Edited by Deabo2030 (17 Mar 2016 3.05pm) Edited by Deabo2030 (17 Mar 2016 3.06pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 17 Mar 16 3.19pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Deabo2030
In reply to jamiemartin721: So in a nutshell, I can do what I want and the state is responsible! Sometimes I wonder what happened to this Great Nation. Edited by Deabo2030 (17 Mar 2016 3.05pm) Edited by Deabo2030 (17 Mar 2016 3.06pm) No, the state is bound by obligations that limit of its capacity to extract justice. I don't see how it can be construed that the state is somehow responsible for peoples actions. The concept of rights defines the responsibility of the state to citizens, in much the same way the law defines the responsibility of citizens to the state. I'm held responsible for my actions, and the state is held responsible for its actions. Also, the human rights defined, aren't exactly ground breaking. Things like, the state is not permitted to torture people, citizens have the right to a fair trial, the right to free expression and assembly, the right to vote. Nothing in Human Rights act is particularly radical or controversial.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| exitstageright London 17 Mar 16 4.34pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
No, the state is bound by obligations that limit of its capacity to extract justice. I don't see how it can be construed that the state is somehow responsible for peoples actions. The concept of rights defines the responsibility of the state to citizens, in much the same way the law defines the responsibility of citizens to the state. I'm held responsible for my actions, and the state is held responsible for its actions. Also, the human rights defined, aren't exactly ground breaking. Things like, the state is not permitted to torture people, citizens have the right to a fair trial, the right to free expression and assembly, the right to vote. Nothing in Human Rights act is particularly radical or controversial. On the 'right to a fair trial' point. Convicted child rapist, Shabir Ahmed, ringleader of a gang of paedophiles in Rochdale, is petitioning the European Court of Human Rights to prevent his deportation. He claims that his trial was 'institutionally racist' because 11 of the jury members were white. Controversial?
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Deabo2030 Ipswich. Suffolk 18 Mar 16 8.26am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by exitstageright
On the 'right to a fair trial' point. Convicted child rapist, Shabir Ahmed, ringleader of a gang of paedophiles in Rochdale, is petitioning the European Court of Human Rights to prevent his deportation. He claims that his trial was 'institutionally racist' because 11 of the jury members were white. Controversial? Oh don't go there, I'll leave this thread as I know what will happen but if write what I think, free expression only goes so far it's called being PC! My comments will be taken down!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 18 Mar 16 4.14pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by exitstageright
On the 'right to a fair trial' point. Convicted child rapist, Shabir Ahmed, ringleader of a gang of paedophiles in Rochdale, is petitioning the European Court of Human Rights to prevent his deportation. He claims that his trial was 'institutionally racist' because 11 of the jury members were white. Controversial? So do you believe people have the right to a fair trial - and how would you enforce that right?
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| exitstageright London 18 Mar 16 4.41pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
So do you believe people have the right to a fair trial - and how would you enforce that right? So do you believe Ahmed's appeal is reasonable - and if not how would you deter such vexatious proceedings? As to your questions. Yes, I believe people have a right to a fair trial. I would enforce that by allowing appeals. But if the appeal judges find that the appeal is vexatious, I would have it that the sentence is increased and the costs borne by the person appealing.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.