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
Do you know how many Countries are part of the European Union?
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.
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.
Without a single word of explanation!
What, exactly, was the judgement?
Used ECHR laws to sue the British government for stopping the publication of his book, he received £5000 .
Used ECHR laws to sue the British government for being imprisoned for 2 years. he received £2500.
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.
OR maybe you should stop abusing prisoners and violating human rights? Just an idea, crazy I know.
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.
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.
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.
And how on earth do you reach that conclusion?
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.
Try rereading what was written, here, I'll repeat it for you -
"Yeah criminals shouldn't do it, neither should you."
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.
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?
The abuses were a whole variety hence your repeated convictions for them.
For example the right of "A and others" not to be jailed indefinitely without trial on suspicion of terrorism.
The right to a fair and unbiased trial (let alone a trial at all) is a basic human right. That would be just one.
I agree with both your statements Josak.
Now can you explain why those who have had a fair and unbiased trial should be allowed to sue for compensation for the loss of privileges.
Have you not been following the discussion then John, maybe you should go back and read the OP.
It's still as vague and non-specific as the first time I read it.
However as your OP was so lacking in information I did a bit of research. I was puzzled how you could include a "prisoner" that had been free for forty odd years - George Blake - and I discovered that he had received compensation of £5000 yes five grand because he had written a book which the British government banned.
He didn't receive the five grand because the government had banned it but because they had taken nine, yes nine years to conclude his case.
Hell banning books should be enough in my opinion. Surely that is a violation of the right to free speech and information. Seems more than fair. Actually 5000 is pretty paltry either way.
Though if I ever wrote a book I would hope it would be banned as that would guarantee record sales
I suppose you are right Josak maybe books like mein kampf shouldn't be banned in some European countries.
I believe animal farm was banned for a time also, how ridiculous is that.
Both are completely ridiculous. Particularly Animal farm and 1984 (both were banned here in the US) which have such important lessons. But also Mein Kampf which allows us to learn from our mistakes and try to understand how that horror occurred so we can prevent it re-ocurring.
I remember reading that Germany had banned the book and also holocaust denial texts, not a good move in my view. I was pleased to see Chomsky travel there to tackle the issue specifically.
Quite, especially now with the interweb thingy, banning a book does not remove it from readers, it just gives it a cachet that makes many people who wouldn't normally bother the impetus to read it.
Can you direct me to such a case? (not saying they don't exist just saying I keep finding examples of beatings and denial of fair trial) Anyway your OP complains about all the losses in EU court and that is one of them.
The right to a speedy and fair trail for a start.
The right not to suffer inhumane punishment for another.
I'll let you mull those two over and state your case as to why they shouldn't be allowed either of those things before I go on.
The system is obviously overburdened with the amount of criminals awaiting trial and as the saying goes if you cant do the time don't do the crime. I believe any time spent on remand is taken of the sentence, I suppose that's not good enough for the murderers who have to spend their life in prison though is it.
Are you referring to those wrongly convicted John? Because these are not the wrongly convicted who are making these claims.
If the system is overburdened then it needs to be expanded, Time in remand may be taken off if you are found guilty but if you are found innocent that is a year in jail for absolutely nothing.
We begin with a presumption of innocence remember?
So you think it fair that the accused, whether guilty or not and whether remanded or not, should be kept waiting for years to find their fate?
And you know that not everybody who goes to prison is a murderer either.
Not every criminal has to wait either John. And just for the record I don't think it is fair for either the accused or their victims.
But I also don't think its fair that convicted criminals should profit from their incarceration either.
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?
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.
No answer then? You don't know what legislation they introduced!
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?
You still haven't made the point of your OP clear. What legislation?
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.
And quite rightly too.
This government sticks two fingers up at human rights.
Which human rights do they stick to fingers up to John?
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.
Oh now you are on about the UN human wrongs declaration, that's even more ridiculous considering all the nations completely ignore them.
Anyway there is nothing wrong with being unemployed its the continuing to be so because it suits your lifestyle bit that people get upset about. Its funny how long term unemployed in the UK can live quite well while some in other counties under the UN declaration starve to death if they cant or don't work.
It always seems to be the fat cat politicians who come up with these rules and declarations that break them first, it seems politicians are more equal than the rest of us. I suppose you think it would be different under your socialist utopia John?
I must agree with the fact that you're not likely to get justice unless you are wealthy, but then again its the politicians that have made it this way. Mainly to protect their equality.
A terrorist is a terrorist and it doesn't matter what flag they fly they are the enemy and should be treated as such. I doubt if anyone here is treated differently just because of their religion (by the government that is) Unless of course you are a Jehovah's witness and have blood forced on you by the courts.
Ah peaceful assembly, not quite sure what constitutes peaceful assembly John, I have been to some pretty raucous union rallies in the past. And they have the audacity to ban EDL rallies on the grounds they incite racial hatred.
Human rights are all very good and proper only when everyone adheres to the rules and the rules don't favour the individual against the rules.. How is it possible morally and legally that someone can claim compensation for being locked up for murder when he didn't give a toss about the rights of the person he murdered in the first place?
The European human rights rubbish is nothing more than a criminals charter, to protect the politician and petty dictators from getting a noose around their necks for treason and crimes against humanity, just like the founding fathers of the EU had done to them after WW2, they hung all the Nazi's didn't they!!! (well that is what the Nazi's wanted wasn't it? A united Europe under one flag)
So basically you don't hold with human rights!
Now where did you get that from John?
I believe everyone has the expectation of basic human rights, the right to live your life.
The problems come with political embellishments by people motivated by their own agenda's.
It seems to me that you would restrict human rights to those who you agree with.
Fr example, I mention Muslims and you immediately think terrorist.
Please tell me which Muslim has been found guilty of committing no offence?
What law are they guilty of then John or supposed law?
How many have been to court for refusing a medical procedure then?
How many have actually been to court for wearing a niqab?
And How many have been to court for preaching hate?
How many have been convicted of a terrorist act?
I know plenty of Muslims John, I have the pleasure of working with many over the years and consider some as personal friends, non of them are terrorists and many condemn terrorism. I have nothing against Muslims that they don't have against themselves, all of them agree that the Jihadists have given the religion of peace the persona of the religion of hate.
You mentioned that they are perceived to be guilty of something I did not.
Er! You equated mention of terrorists with Muslims!
See I see what you have done John,
As I am not in agreement with your statement that all Muslims are guilty you have presumed that my mention of terrorism was aimed only at Islamism ones, when in actual fact I mentioned nothing of the sort. You inferred that people think that all Muslims are terrorists to suit your objection to my post. Its funny how you didn't try and twist the other points I made<
The OP was made to show how the criminal is served by the ECHR and whether you like the Daily mail or not the facts in their story can easily be checked.
No, it was your response to my statement that Muslims were usually presumed guilty.
I don't have to twist any points you make - you do it yourself.
OK John presumed guilty of what?
I still see that you made the point to evoke a response to it!
But the original post mentioned nothing about Muslims.
So was it one of your normal distraction statements?
The fact is the ECHR has made many of these types of judgements, I don't have to twist the facts about that.
I cannot find any reference to the Truman trial for his slaughter of thousands of civilians.
Sorry RB maybe I should have said they hung all the Nazi leaders didn't they?
In actual fact they didn't, but they did hang or shoot a large proportion, 10 out of the 12 sentenced to death at Nuremburg where hanged.
Albert Pierpont hung 190 Nazi war criminals including 10 women, many who worked in the concentration camps.
It is undocumented how many the Russians Hung or shot but the estimate is between 2000 and 3000.
There is plenty of interesting information about if you want to find out.
by karl3 years ago
I see the European court has once again ruled that the UK is in breach of the European human rights act.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23230419Surely some crimes are so heinous that the perpetrator should be locked up...
by theirishobserver.6 years ago
The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that countries are not obliged to allow gay marriage, rejecting a bid by an Austrian couple to force the state to let them wed.
by Akriti Mattu18 months ago
Personally, i feel it's a huge leap forward. What are your views ?
by cjhunsinger6 years ago
The governance of America has been slowly shifting from the Constitution, individual freedom, to the mandate of the United Nations Charter and the Declaration on Human Rights, a notably socialistic document. That...
by sarovai7 years ago
Country to country human rights laws are changing? or Common things are considered as human rights?
by cjhunsinger6 years ago
The American Bill of Rights is a restriction of government to interfer with the inherent rights of Man. The Bill of Rights is essentially the Freedom to Achieve. Human Rights are those rights granted by the United...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.