jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (56 posts)

European court of human wrongs

  1. Silverspeeder profile image61
    Silverspeederposted 3 years ago

    Britain has lost a staggering 202 European human rights cases involving murderers, terrorists, paedophiles and rapists, it emerged yesterday.
    Judges in Strasbourg handed the criminals taxpayer-funded payouts of £4.4million – an average of
    £22,000 a head.

    Recipients since 1998 include the traitor George Blake, extremist cleric Abu Qatada and the IRA killer dubbed Mrs Doubtfire.

    The House of Commons figures fuelled fresh demands for Britain to pull out of the convention on which the European Court of Human
    Rights bases its rulings.

    It seems crime really does pay in the European Union.

    These ruling are made by appointed representatives and don't even have to have any judicial experience.

    I doubt very much whether other countries would stand for such an obvious travesty of justice.
    When convicted of an offence the prisoner should lose all rights except those of basic existence and subsistamce

    1. 0
      Brenda Durhamposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Very interesting!
      Sounds crazy.
      Do you know how many Countries are part of the European Union?

      1. Silverspeeder profile image61
        Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        27 at the moment Brenda and more waiting to join because of the huge benefits it will be to their countries not necessarily the EU's or any other.
        Many of the countries within the EU turn a blind eye to the rulings of this court whilst others enforce it rigidly.
        When faceless unelected politicians make decisions on what's right or wrong it becomes a dictatorship.

    2. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Unfortunately, while the concept of human rights sounds like a no brainer it almost always becomes a matter of imposing my cultural morals onto everyone around me.  Until we all become one culture (hopefully never) there will always be human rights violations and there will always be people insisting that their concept of what our rights should be is superior to everyone else's.

    3. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Without a single word of explanation!

      What, exactly, was the judgement?

    4. Silverspeeder profile image61
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      George Blake
      Used ECHR laws to sue the British government for stopping the publication of his book, he received £5000 .
      Abu Qatada
      Used ECHR laws to sue the British government for being imprisoned for 2 years. he received £2500.
      Douglass Vintner
      Used ECHR laws to sue the British government because he received a whole life sentence for the murder of his wife (His second murder), he received £35000.
      The list goes on and on and on and on.

    5. Josak profile image61
      Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      OR maybe you should stop abusing prisoners and violating human rights? Just an idea, crazy I know.

      1. Silverspeeder profile image61
        Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Maybe prisoners should stop violating the human rights of law abiding people then Josak and mybe they wouldn't become prisoners.
        And maybe these European bureaucrats should stop interfering with the rights of the majority.

        1. Josak profile image61
          Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Yeah criminals shouldn't do it, neither should you. That is a "he started it!" argument and it befits a kindergarten argument not a serious debate.

          1. Silverspeeder profile image61
            Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            So sorry Josak
            But as you didn't elaborate I thought you had nothing to say on the matter.

            Obviously you put criminals rights above those of their victims.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              And how on earth do you reach that conclusion?

              1. Silverspeeder profile image61
                Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                The conclusion is simple John, both of you seem to give weight to the fact that prisoners are hard done by because they have been incarcerated for their crimes.

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Try rereading what was written, here, I'll repeat it for you -

                  "Yeah criminals shouldn't do it, neither should you."

                2. Josak profile image61
                  Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Incarceration and abuse are different things. If you are being found guilty of abuse it's because you are doing much more than just putting people in jail (excuse my American spelling).

                  Criminals are punished because they abused someone, that does not mean you can start abusing them. As I said that is a "He started it!" argument which is just ridiculous.

                  1. Silverspeeder profile image61
                    Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    And your line of thinking is just ridiculous. Surely you don't believe prisoners should have the same rights as anyone else?
                    No prisoner was starved to death, no prisoner was refused medical treatment, all prisoners have access to education, so what other rights should they have?

            2. Josak profile image61
              Josakposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Nope and nowhere did I say that.

  2. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 3 years ago

    By the way, George Blake escaped from prison in 1966 and fled to Russia.

    How did Blake benefit in any way from an EU decision half a century later?

    1. Silverspeeder profile image61
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Don't know John, maybe it was for mental anguish!

      Lets face it these bunch of bureaucrats stopped us deporting a criminal because his cat would miss him.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        No answer then? You don't know what legislation they introduced!

        1. Silverspeeder profile image61
          Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Do you then John?

          These are rulings above and beyond their original brief, all in the name of human rights.

          I take it you are a fan of bureaucratic intervention then John?

          Maybe you can tell me how the human rights of prisoners were violated by not letting them vote when in reality the criminals had violated the human rights of their victims?

          Article 1 Protocol 3 provides as follows:
          The High Contracting Parties shall hold free elections at reasonable intervals by secret ballot, under conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of the legislature.

          Who made that law then?

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You still haven't made the point of your OP clear. What legislation?

            1. Silverspeeder profile image61
              Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Human rights legislation John?????

              Its clear that these criminals used European human rights legislation to supersede the law (both common and legislative) of the UK.

              Oh and they used Article 1 protocol 3 as there basis to the claim.
              As the UK government hadn't enforced the ruling of the ECHR they sought compensation based upon that decision.

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                And quite rightly too.

                This government sticks two fingers up at human rights.

                1. Silverspeeder profile image61
                  Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Which human rights do they stick to fingers up to John?

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Where do I start!

                    Let's look at a few, from the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights -

                    "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

                    Unless of curse you happen to be unemployed.

                    "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."

                    Though some appear to be more equal than others.

                    "Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him."

                    Just as long as you are well heeled and can afford it.

                    "Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence."

                    Except for Muslims and they are obviously guilty whatever the law says.

                    "Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association."

                    Unless the government don't like you.

                    I could go on but that's a start.

 
working