Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Should Britain Scrub Human Rights Charter
Glasgow Boards/Forums > GG Discussions > Other Discussions
Pages: 1, 2, 3
auldbutcher

Should David Cameron stand up to Europe over judge ruling on paedos?
8:36AM - Feb 17, 2011
JUDGES have ruled that paedophiles and rapists can apply to have their names removed from the Sex Offenders Register.
The Prime Minister condemned the measure - effectively a Perverts' Charter - as "offensive".

And he vowed to launch an inquiry within days into the crazy human rights laws that have allowed it.

The latest crisis was triggered when the Supreme Court ruled that it was "disproportionate" to keep two sex offenders - Angus Thompson and a teenager called JF - on the register for life without the right of appeal.

JF was caged for 30 months for raping a child and other offences when he was 11. Thompson, of Newcastle, got five years for indecent assault.

After the ruling the Home Office announced that any offender on the register for 15 years will be able to apply to have his name taken off.

Home Secretary Theresa May said: "It places the rights of sex offenders above the right of the public to be protected."

Mrs May promised to "make the minimum possible changes" and said police will have the final say on whether an offender stays on the register. She vowed: "Sex offenders who continue to pose a risk will remain on the register and will do so for life."

Should David Cameron stand up to Europe on this issue?



This is an article that filled me with disgust today foul paedophiles and other sex predators trying to evade being kept on this list for lif,e who are these people who lay down these rules, the mandarins who sit in some obscure chamber and seem hell bent on letting criminals , terrorists ,and now paedophiles ,have free rein to carry oot there twisted agenda's me i say enough is enough whit say you mah freens. rolleyes.gif mad.gif
benny
Naw, ah don't think they should scrub the Human Rights Charter, but there should be some severe modifications made tae it. Whit ah think they should scrub is the situation where unelected foreign beaurocrats can control such important aspects of oor lives. Ah'm aw in favour of the EU and of International Law as a concept, but ah think we should hiv reserved the right tae at least hiv a say in oor ain laws.
Mathieson
We should ditch the EU's human rights charter as it has just become a convenienet hobby horse for all sorts of idiotic schemes. Britain should be capable of devising it's own version that looks after the people whose rights deserve to be protected and not a charter for crooks, murderers, paedos and rapists. Presently it always seems the wrong doers that are having their "rights" maintained while time after time those wronged against are asking "where's the justice?"
beth
benny and Mathieson, I agree with both of you, from a distance, there fore it can only be a possibly uneducated agreement. I cannot understand how a foreign entity can dictate to Britain about the laws in its own country. Seems to me, again from a distance, that Britain is in a bit of a pickle with the Eu Human rights thing, what about the rights of the ordinary British man in the streets' rights?
Jupiter
I think it is disgraceful that Britain handed over certain judicial responsibilities to the EU.(I think it was done at the Lisbon Treaty but I will stand corrected).In addition I think UK state interference in the Judiciary,where judges hands are tied because of political diktats is even more insidious,and Im sure it was the last Labour Government who decided it was their responsibility to do so.
bilbo.s
QUOTE (benny @ 17th Feb 2011, 07:37pm) *
Naw, ah don't think they should scrub the Human Rights Charter, but there should be some severe modifications made tae it. Whit ah think they should scrub is the situation where unelected foreign beaurocrats can control such important aspects of oor lives. Ah'm aw in favour of the EU and of International Law as a concept, but ah think we should hiv reserved the right tae at least hiv a say in oor ain laws.



Good to see a moderate, well balanced , non-political view on this subject. Very rare on here. smile.gif
Dunvegan
Britain has a human rights charter it's called the "Magna Carta" the imposition of these farcial imposts from the failed European Union is another dissolution of rights and sovereignty. With a so called bill of rights, every motivated minority, and it's very apparent how many of them are manipulating the present system, will be in a position to question every thought you wish to express and every ethical standard you wish to apply to your self or those you wish to associate with, and impose legal sanction if you if you fail to comply. In all of this the perpetrators of indignities against cherished ideals and long held beliefs, will render the majority helpless and powerless in the face of the new arbiters of political correctness who are on the way to becoming the spear head of the rise of neo fascism.
Big Brother coming soon to a parliament near you.
benny
As I've already said, I was - and am still - in favour of Britain being part of Europe. I don't think we can turn the clock back in that respect, nor do I think we should try to. What I find disturbing though, is that more and more areas of national sovereignity are being encroached upon by officials whom we have no say in choosing. These aren't just relatively petty matters, like whit shape a banana should be, but areas that vitally affect our everyday lives and I feel that we, or at least our representatives, should have some input in the matter.
auldbutcher
The European Union opened a flood gate of peoples from all over Europe who came in and started to claim all sorts o benefit's ,ALONG WITH THEM CAME SOME OF THE MOST DANGEROUS SCUM AND CRIMINAL'S HOPING TO EVADE THERE ON POLICE FORCE'S.

How about the Muslim agitators preaching there doctor ins of hate abusing our armed force's even taking to abusing wounded service men in hospitals ,while at the same time milking the welfare system for all its worth you have hooky the mad mullah daen time fer his out rages rantings agin all things British ,his family living in a bluddy mansion at the states expense .

The theres the colored paedophile who has twice done time fer offence's agin kids o both sex's he got out o jail but can't be deported fer why you ask ? cos he hired a bunch o shyster lawyers tae fight his case ,weel its agin his human right ? human rights fer a beast ,who peyes fer this, the state who else .

Where's the justice god only knows.

Nae wonder the rest o the world looks at us an laughs there bluddy erses aff. mad.gif
mlconnelly
I've never been a fan of the EU but agree with bilbo that we can't turn the clock back. What we can do is cut our losses while we have some left to cut. Does no-one in the EU ever recognise the human rights of the victims and their families in these cases who are usually left with a life sentence.
Off thread a little, are those of you living abroad aware that there has been a spate of rapes in Glasgow (city centre and west end) and that the perpetrators are allegedly all foreigners. The last occurred in Wilton St Maryhill about 5 minutes walk from where I live. Scarey
wombat
auldbutcher sed:Nae wonder the rest o the world looks at us an laughs there bluddy erses aff.

widdie ye expect auldyin yir politicians urr a pack o theivn snobs,yie live in a class system where tories are "always" the ruling party no matter who wins an election ,an yir monarchys straight outta blackadder laugh.gif




mitchell
QUOTE (wombat @ 22nd Mar 2011, 10:15pm) *
widdie ye expect auldyin yir politicians urr a pack o theivn snobs,yie live in a class system where tories are "always" the ruling party no matter who wins an election ,an yir monarchys straight outta blackadder laugh.gif


Aye right, we have a similar situation here with the Liberals, don't we not?
wombat
rolleyes.gif YEP!we do,not that ah'm a fan of joolya gizzard either.
TeeHeeHee
QUOTE (beth @ 17th Feb 2011, 05:49pm) *
I cannot understand how a foreign entity can dictate to Britain about the laws in its own country.

Once a sovereign state enters the European Union it becomes akin to the Union of the American states; as in the United States of Europe, so therefore the EU cannot be classified as a foreign entity by any of it's member states.
However, unlike the USA, there seems to be no House of Representatives where elected representatives speak on behalf the people for it's member states.
A bill of human rights is a necessity but should avoid becoming a Bill of Human Nonsense.
As in the USA each Eurostate should be responsible for it's own laws so that where it might be against the law to shoot wild boar on a Sunday in Baden Württemberg (where I live) there should be nothing against Paddy shootin' one in Conemarra if it's eatin' his tumschies on a Sunday.
If politicians in Brussels (the Capitol City of Paedophillia) want to give paedos an easy time of it and allow them the chance to elect paedo sympathisers into office then that's their dirty business but the other Eurostates should have the right to implement the wishes of their own voters into their Statutory Laws and if that excludes the right to vote for sex offenders and having their names permanently listed then so be it.
Rabbie
Scrub human rights.

Well some folk need to be human for that tae happen.

Asides frea yon, the only scrubbing I ken is the wan ma' maw and her sisters gave me in the sink, wi big dods o' carbolic soap borrowed frea Toonhied "Private" Baffs and yon brillo pads.

Usually the watter wus tae hoat or tae cauld but us weans glowed like new pins after a guid hose doon.

Ach weeell....
Chrissie
I think the EU is a great thing. Right now the bigger powers are too tied up with their own problems. China seems a friendly nation but it wasn't always, neither was Russia. Then there's that loon in N. Korea. In the event that hostilities threatened Europe wouldn't it be better to have Germany, Spain and the other countries to aligned with us. I mean the UK isn't the biggest nation in the world and being an island doesn't cut it anymore. However, if the high heid yins want the EU to work permanently they will need to have some kind of house of representatives because if they don't people will become disgruntled and push to get out.
mlconnelly
Fair point Chrissie but being a native of Great Britain used to be something to be proud of and that was partly because we lived on an island and we had our own identity. That isn't the case anymore as more and more of that identity is being taken away by nameless faceless people who are forcing rules and regulation on us that we neither need nor want (no bent bananas being 1 and straighter cucumbers another). Not only that but we don't get any say in who these people are or the decisions that they make. This latest decision to allow paedophiles to have their names taken off the sex offenders list is ridiculous. Its a simple case of do the crime , do the time and everything else that goes with it.
TeeHeeHee
The Idea of the straight bananas and cucumbers was that they would be easier to pack in regulation sized boxes.
This of course would lead to cubic Melons of uniform size being the next idea.
All very funny of course if it wasn't for the fact that these idiots are in secure, pensioned, positions being funded by thee and me. rolleyes.gif
Heather
Well Tee they have to be seen to be earning the big salaries they get paid.

The MEPs should straighten themselves out instead of wasting time passing legislation about the shape bananas. sad.gif

I have never heard of any decent person who gained anything from the Human Rights Bill.
It seems to work in favour of criminals and terrorists in this Country.
mlconnelly
EU only seems to care about the human rights of the criminal and not the victims, who are usually left with a life sentence. Can someone tell me what happened to common sense? Its seems to me that it got lost around the time the PC idiots appeared on the horizon.
wee davy
Considering it only became legally binding in 2009, I have not read the 54 Articles, in seven titles,.. yet! (Fat chance!) However, I would find it pretty amazing if we in the UK, didn't differ too much from its essential principles.

I have found out, however, we DO still maintain an opt-out' option if there exists fundamental differences between our existing laws, and those were expected to adhere to.

Therefore (IMO), we can still tell them to get stuffed,.. we are doing it OUR way.

(Am I glad I didn't study Law, or what!)

BTW I found out the governing body for Fundamental Rights did propose a simplified mini-charter - but it was vetoed, on grounds of cost - COST, yep you heard me right the first time!
So, we have a charter which the layman hasn't got FOGGIEST what's in it.
(Unless your an expert in European Court Law)
You couldn't POSSIBLY write this stuff.
weeshuggie
It should be binding, after all we had a referendum and the votes of the people are what counts not the idiocy of the politicians. The people have spoken and the majority of the people of Britain decided that we must be part of the EU. God bless democracy.

You know people are dying on the streets of Tripoli and Benghazi fighting for what the British government denied it's people, democracy, british pilots fighting for lybians to have what the British are not allowed, a say in their own destiny.
Chrissie
miconnelly - Didn't realize that pedophiles were being given a clean slate. Each country should have their own laws on peds since there's no real cure for it. Most psychiatrists are of that opinion. That's a criminal issue not a civil rights option. No wonder they say the law is an ass. mad.gif
mlconnelly
Chrissie, we even have an element of the criminal fraternity being give the right to vote while in prison. I was under the impression that when you committed a crime, you were then sent to prison to be punished and part of that punishment was losing your right to vote. To say the law is an ass is the understatement of the year.
Heather
Weeshuggie, Britain did not have a referendum on the Human Rights Bill.

The one were we had a vote was in the early 1970s was for Britain to enter the European Common Market.
TeeHeeHee
QUOTE (Heather @ 25th Mar 2011, 03:18pm) *
Weeshuggie, Britain did not have a referendum on the Human Rights Bill.

The one were we had a vote was in the early 1970s was for Britain to enter the European Common Market.

If the referendum was to enter the European Union (or European Economical Community) then technically any bills passed later by that community must be binding within member states.
mlconnelly
I wonder how many people who voted then to join the Common Market would still vote the same way now and what way the generation that followed who were too young to vote 1st time round, like me, would go if given the choice of staying in the EU or not. huh.gif
wee davy
QUOTE (Heather @ 25th Mar 2011, 03:18pm) *
Weeshuggie, Britain did not have a referendum on the Human Rights Bill.

The one were we had a vote was in the early 1970s was for Britain to enter the European Common Market.


I'm not usually one for pedantics, Heather - but in this case, I think its important to note, as I remember it, we actually voted for membership of the European Economic Community (EEC).

Our 'take' on it, was, 'The Common Market' - indeed it was partly through this idea of it just being a way to make everybody have a few more shillings in their pocket, that suckered us all in, in the bliddy FIRST place!

Despite all that, only time will tell us, if we made the right decision.

I'd give it another 10 years - then we ought to be back to £ s d - lbs and ounces - inches & feet and miles, well - two out of three can't be bad lol wink.gif They still havent kicked out Imperial system into the long grass yet - and I believe the Germans are considering going back to the Dmark
Heather
Mary I was asked the same question a few years ago on holiday in Italy.

An English couple we used to chat with after the evening meal brought it up. The man asked if I voted for it and I said yes, he asked would I still vote yes, and I said NO.

That man said it would have made no difference which way the Country voted as Ted Heath had already signed up to it and the YES vote just agreed with what he had done.
I never knew that.
mlconnelly
Dosen't surprise me Heather, just another case of MPs (or PMs in this case) being underhand. I most definitely would not vote to stay in the "Common Market, EEC or EU" or any other name it goes by. Davy, occassionally when I buy stuff, I find that I automatically revert back. Do you realise that a Snickers bar ( Marathon in auld money) is about 11/- and an Evening Times about 9/-. laugh.gif
There was talk of Ireland dumping the euro as well.
TeeHeeHee
QUOTE (wee davy @ 25th Mar 2011, 09:13pm) *
- and I believe the Germans are considering going back to the Dmark

Oh dear, I believe again rolleyes.gif
If you mean, by the Germans, the German people then there are a few who feel that they were better off during the reign of the D Mark but they are mostly older people. The rest appreciate the single currency; especially those who live on frontiers.
If you mean, by the Germans, the German Government then your belief is; like all beliefs, unfounded in fact.
Germany is the richest country in the European Union and it's government has no intention of reverting back to the Deutschmark.
Chrissie
Mlconnelly, Every country has its lunatic fringe. Convicted felons lose their right to vote here - permanently. It didn't stop some people from trying once change that. Some of our brilliant politicians even decided a few years ago that undocumented aliens able to prove residency for a certain amount of years should be allowed to vote in some places. Undocumented aliens is the Democrats politically correct way of identifying illegal aliens.
mlconnelly
Is the Monster Raving Looney Party still active? If they are, they'd get my vote every time. If they're not, wish they were are the couldn't possibly make thing any worse than there are. tongue.gif
benny
To all those who would like to see us leave the EU, I have one question. Where would we go? The "glories" of an imperial past are far behind us - there's no Empire for us to retreat into and pull up the drawbridge. The Commonwealth is a mere lingering echo of our former status as a first rank world power, and of no practical importance whatsoever.
Britain could certainly survive on it's own if need be, but only at a cost which few would be prepared to pay - a dramatic - in fact catastrophic - decline in living standards.
Our history, as well as our economy, is interlinked with that of Europe,like it or not.
The only practical alternative that I can see to EU membership is our being incorporated as another state of the USA, and how many people would vote for that?

As I see it, the problem isn't with the idea of the EU as such, but with the constant encroachments made on our national sovereignity by bureaucrats who answer directly to no-one, and by the speed at which new member countries have been admitted. I think things have gone too far, too fast, but that the basic concept of the EU is still a sound one.
Tommy Kennedy
the basic concept of the EU is still a sound one. - absolutley!

It’s a natural evolution for Europe to unite. Since the beginning of mankind ‘tribes have united against other tribes. Nations were not born; they were formed from terrorism, the strong taking over the weak regions as in the U.K – The whole history of Britain from ancient times to recent times – fighting in N.Ireland – is of internal conflict and terrorism.
The British Establishment scoffed at the idea of the E.U. when it was first created – it still had delusions of Empire days and that it, the U.K, was the most important country of Europe- thus it lost its chance to be one of the major players of the E.U.
Now it is paying the price for that view and hanging on to America’s coat tails.
Now with America’s power in the world on the wane, most certainly its influence in Europe, Britain needs its Euro Neighbours as never before. 60% of our exports are to Euro countries.
No, we do not want as THEE, suggests separate/different laws for each country. America has that for each State and gives it lots of problems.
Most importantly the only chance for change to our Establishment – the Royals, the elite who believe they have the right to rule IS a united Europe that will take that ‘Right to rule’ away from the elite – , they know that,why they are so anti-E.U.

bilbo.s
Well said, Benny and Tommy. Viva Europa !!
wee davy
Ah wid imagine the Marathon is better VFM! I think it became a Snickers because of, and not long after we joined the common market - as that was what it was called throughout Europe!
Tommy Kennedy
I would add that the U.K. needs the 'Business expertise' of Europe. As I've said before, for centuries Britain had no 'competition experience' in the markets; having had 'Captive markets' with it's empire and colonies and at 'home' depended on cheap labour in the manufacturing industries.
bilbo.s
QUOTE (wee davy @ 26th Mar 2011, 02:43pm) *
Ah wid imagine the Marathon is better VFM! I think it became a Snickers because of, and not long after we joined the common market - as that was what it was called throughout Europe!



Wee Davy,

Uk joined EEC /Common Market in 1973. The name change of this confectionery was made in 1990, when the Mars corporation decided, for economic reasons, to standardize the names of all their products. The Marathon name was only ever used in UK and Eire, "Snickers" ( improbably named after a racehorse ) was the original US and rest of the world label.

Are you attempting to create more urban myths or just stirrng up anti -EU feeling?

Perhaps you can point us to the EU legislation regarding product naming ? tongue.gif
wee davy
We British were perfectly happy with our Marathon bar, bilbo! Mars and Nestle forced many product name changes, off the 'back' of their new EEC distribution, upon the UK public. (Many companies have followed suit)

This was of course perfectly good economic business sense - but there is no doubting they took advantage of EEC standardisation desires. C'mon, you know as well as I do - do we REALLY need everything to comply to EU standards?
People make money through all the legislation bilbo and the more & more people see it happening - the more resentful they become.
I'm personally not convinced we made the right decision in 1973.
But I'm certainly no 'Anti-Europhile'.
I simply believe in less beaurocracy - not MORE.
The current coalition government promised us less, on their election - hold my breath - but not for TOO long! I can think of a lot of uses for the House of Lords, for example - but it'll STILL be there for freaking light years.
You know it - I know it - and more importantly, THEY know it!

PS Oxford for the Boat Race BTW Put yer hoos oan it! lol
benny
While I'm in favour of the EU, Tommy, I don't agree that there isn't room for regional variation within it, whether that applies to law or any other area. Neither do I want to see the complete submergence of individual countries in some monolithic monster run by faceless bureaucrats unaccountable to anyone but themselves. I'm quite happy to be part of a European Union composed of individual member countries, who retain some control over their own lives, but I wouldn't vote for a united Europe if that meant the loss of national identities.
bilbo.s
I think the name "Snickers" is quite revolting. I object to your blaming the EU for the change. The US firm Mars could not give a toss about EU policies - it was their financial decision. mad.gif
wee davy
QUOTE
The US firm Mars could not give a toss about EU policies


Do you think Proctor & Gamble agree with this strategy? tongue.gif laugh.gif
TeeHeeHee
Tommy, Holland's regional laws on cannabis is a very good example of different strokes for different folks.
Switzerland ( although not a member of the E.U.) had the same kind of thing going with, at one time, about 200+ head shops in Basel alone, till the Christian (right wing) Democrats took over the councils and closed them down.
Result?
Hell's Angel run pubs took over the distribution putting up the prices, creating territory wars and necessitating extra policing at more cost to the taxpayer.
Sovereign state members of the EU should still maintain their own regional laws.
ashfield
QUOTE (wee davy @ 26th Mar 2011, 05:36pm) *
Do you think Proctor & Gamble agree with this strategy?


Aye, they will in a Cif, sorry Jif rolleyes.gif
benny
Some o these name changes don't even make sense frae an advertisin perspective. Look at Oil of Ulay, which wis transformed ntae Oil of Olay. The original name hinted at unlimited sexual conquests, the new wan reeks o the sweat frae a matador's breeks. biggrin.gif
Tommy Kennedy
but I wouldn't vote for a united Europe if that meant the loss of national identities.

National Identities have begun to erode without the E.U. Benny - Down to the rapid changing world/the masses travelling as never before/ instant comunications - even down to our rubbish/recycling bins: E.G we have the same bins as they have in Oz and the U.S.
Even our 'foods' are becoming standardrised thru out the Western world -hey, even the supermarkets in China are like Western supermarkets.
When was the last time members here last had a Haggis or a fish & chip supper, more likely a Kebab a Chinese or a Pizza!

And the foregoing in just about the last 5 decades.
Most certainly your Grandparents would not recognise to-days U.K. as 'British'

If getting the 'Loss of National Identities' means getting rid of 'Blind Patriotism' all the better.


TeeHeeHee
Peaceful protest LONDON Saturday ...

Click to view attachment


Peaceful protest BRUSSELS ... Thursday ...

Click to view attachment


rolleyes.gif
Chrissie
Tommy, Different states in the USA need different laws. Some states are very liberal and others are conservative to the extreme and then there's the bible belt. That's why the EU needs some kind of federal body or whatever they want to call it with representatives from every single district and everyone allowed to vote. If a country/state is expected to help others financially at times and all need to chip in (I think) you can't have retirement ages differing. That governing body would set a retirement age for all. It's the kind of thing they're needed for. Why should UK taxes be used to supsidize a government whose people are collecting their state pensions 3 or 4 years ahead of the Brits.
On the other side there's what's known here as a quality of life issue that covers many areas. That's where states come in. I live in NY and am mostly liberal but folks in lot of other states are not. Pot is legal - supposedly for medical purposes - in some states and not in others. That's how it should be. Abortion is legal but conservative states mostly outlawed late term abortions.
Maintaining national identity is a given but it has to evolve.

benny
Gradual erosion of national identity through travel and the presence of multinationals on the High Street, is a different thing from enforced and deliberate changes made by unelected officials, Tommy. McDonalds and KFCs may be everywhere in the modern world, but naebody forces ye tae go intae them. On the other hand, many of the rules and regulations of the EU have the force of law, and compliance is not optional for the ordinary punter. Of course, in many instances, the fault lies with the UK parliament for signing up to these rules and regulations without any public consultation.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.