Review Of The Criminals Rights Act........

[ToraToraTora]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55209269
lets hope it's scrapped and replaced by something that does not favour low life criminal scum.

[emmie]

so we just put up with them then.

[youngmafbog]

Well no suprise from the arch liberal jim.

Of course these savages should be thrown out. Change th law to stop the liberal elite money chasing lawyers from making a mockery of our system and good will.

I must say, I dont think it is the left as such. I know a couple of staunch labour supporters and they are worse than me on the topic. Its the Metropolitan liberal elitists with views like jim who cannot understand why so many dont agree with them.

[youngmafbog]

"We want all prisons burnt down, all prison officers sacked, all laws repealed!"

Did you c/p from the BLM website?

[emmie]

the we are a laughing stock, let them stay and cause further harm.

[mushroom25]

// It seems to me that unless France (as usual) don't get what they want from us they will veto any deal. Therefore we will have no deal as of midnight 31st December. //

The European Court of Human Rights predated the creation of the EU, and Brexit has very little to do with this matter.

[pixie374]

No, Jim... that's what I'm saying. I'm just asking who should be financially responsible for their own citizens? Maybe that would focus their, and our, minds... on whether we should be allowing dangerous people to go abroad.

[ToraToraTora]

jim: "The consequence of ensuring that Human Rights are universal and inalienable is that, inevitably, they will apply to criminals, or to people you don't like*," - fine but how does it not infringe the human rights of the masses when we cannot deal with murderous scum? What happens when preserving "human rights" for one infringes those of millions?

[ToraToraTora]

jim: "For example, the agreed-upon rights include a right not to be tortured, degraded, executed" - but you'll release the perps of such things and subject the masses to the possibility of just that to preserve their "human rights"? right oh!

[ToraToraTora]

jim: "In the UK, the twin drivers of the ECHR were Churchill and Maxwell Fyfe. " - perhaps but i suspect they did not forsee how it would be misused. The act meant common sense went out of the window and now we get ever more ridiculous HR "violations" encouraged by money grubbing scum lawyer pals of the WWW.

[New Judge]

//For example, the agreed-upon rights include a right not to be tortured, degraded, executed, enslaved, imprisoned without trial, and tried fairly.//

Indeed they do, Jim. So it would be interesting to learn just how many people have suffered any of those treatments at the hands of the State in, say, the 56 years since the last execution was carried out in the UK. I would hazard a guess that the number is precisely zero. So the question is, why does the UK need to have an Act which prevents those actions by the State when the State has absolutely no intention of inflicting any of them on anybody? Is it in case a government comes to power that is intent on restoring some of those practices, most of which have been absent in our culture for many hundreds of years before the HRA became law? If so, why wasn’t such a law introduced earlier?

//Secondly, I'm confused why the "right to safety" of humans in Jamaica is an apparent non-issue, or why the matter is apparently considered dealt with once these criminals have been deported.//

It’s not a non-issue but it isn’t an issue the UK should concern itself with (in the same way that I doubt the Jamaican government is overly concerned about the safety of humans in the UK). Being a sovereign nation means you can rid your borders of people that have arrived here but whom we don’t want here. It’s bad enough having to deal with home grown violence and other serious crime; there’s no real reason why we should have to deal with the imported variety.

//If this man had been successfully deported to Jamaica, what chance that he'd have murdered somebody over there? Fairly high, I should think,//

Exactly. That’s why he wasn’t wanted here.

//Therefore the assessment that he was ready for release was clearly premature, and *that* is the problem that needs fixing first.//

He wasn’t “ready for release.” He had been sentenced to a determinate sentence and had served it (well at least the proportion of it that the law says he should). His being ready for release or not was not a consideration. Or are you suggesting that all those in prison must undergo an assessment to determine whether they are “ready for release” or not?

Anyway, the review is smoke and mirrors. The HRA simply allows people to pursue actions against the UK government without having to trouble the European Court of Human Rights. If they lose in the UK courts they can still pursue their action at the ECHR. If the HRA is completely repealed or overhauled so as to make it more restrictive they would still have that option and the only way to remove it is to withdraw from the ECHR.

[iluvmargie]

What worries me about all these so called reviews is that nothing ever really changes. It's like we must be seen to do something to quieten the masses and then just slip back into the same old ways. Nothing seems to change, sadly!

[Peter Pedant]

// just how many people have suffered any of those treatments at the hands of the State[UK] in, say, the 56 years since the last {UK} execution was carried out in the UK//

er this is covered by the Abolition act of 1967 and not any Treaty .
In fact internal measures such as the above are covered by legislation. Treaties have other functions regulating matter between states and sending a foreign national home does involve er another state. or at least did when I last looked

complete judicial non sequitur

His Lordship clearly missed out on Brierly's Law of Nations when he was at uni

but heyi t is AB so have fun boys and girls
none of this HAS to make sense and usually doesnt

[New Judge]

//...complete judicial non sequitur//

Did the Act you mention also abolish slavery, torture, degrading treatment and did it provide the right to a fair trial, Peter? Or were all those things not issues in the UK at all and thus the good citizens of this land had no need of an Act that protected them from them? I think you've provided the answer yourself:

//In fact internal measures such as the above are covered by legislation.//

Finally, the 1998 Human Rights Act (the subject of this thread) is not a treaty it is an Act of Parliament. Quite where treaties come into the discussion I'm really not sure.

I don't think it is I who am suffering from a judicial non sequitur