Human rights breached? Anyone care?

[camerafodder]

How I love the thirst for revenge from people who don't know the killer or their victim, those armchair warriors who are so eager to see someone else killed to even the score. Some even boast they would do it themselves. That says more about them than anyone else ever could.
Time after time the evidence we accumulate shows that the death penalty does not deter, but heh! lets not let mere facts confuse the argument, lets get on with being bloodthirsty savages,no better than the offenders but hiding behind state sanctioned killing.
Sometimes I hate the human race, how I hate its stupid face. Anyone who thinks there are simple answers to complex questions is too stupid to have grasped the question. Still, the average IQ is 100 and boy is that low!

Got a good idea then?

 

[Colin_b]

No they are elections for who gains office, whether the will of the electorate is reflected in the subsequent actions of the elected is a totally different matter.

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time - As Churchill said, just after he'd been booted out of office.

What, precisely, have you done to change this system you clearly disapprove of?

 

[stevieb15]

How I love the thirst for revenge from people who don't know the killer or their victim, those armchair warriors who are so eager to see someone else killed to even the score. Some even boast they would do it themselves. That says more about them than anyone else ever could.
Time after time the evidence we accumulate shows that the death penalty does not deter, but heh! lets not let mere facts confuse the argument, lets get on with being bloodthirsty savages,no better than the offenders but hiding behind state sanctioned killing.
Sometimes I hate the human race, how I hate its stupid face. Anyone who thinks there are simple answers to complex questions is too stupid to have grasped the question. Still, the average IQ is 100 and boy is that low!

I am one who doesn't advocate the death penalty, however for different reasons to yours, equally I don't hold in distain those who's views are different to mine...the stupid who are too simple to grasp the obvious to more advanced minds.
The deterrent argument you use is a fallacy as the death penalty doesn't need to be such, rather like parking fines, which don't deter either, it's the penalty which is paid.
I do agree with one aspect of your rant, it is a complex issue, one which I very much doubt you have any better grasp of than the others who you chose to insult.
I reiterate I don't seek the return of the death penalty but there are many stronger arguments than the simplistic "clever people like me should have greater input than the stupid herd"

 

[stevieb15]

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time - As Churchill said, just after he'd been booted out of office.

What, precisely, have you done to change this system you clearly disapprove of?

I vote, based upon what the various parties say they will do when in office.
Other than in a couple of instances I've been disappointed in the lack of vigour displayed by the elected once they have secured our votes.
In regard to efforts to change I always bring my concerns to the attention of the elected when I meet them, I always get the same answer, "we are not delegates" but as we all know that's just a cop out.
I hope to bring it to the attention of Karen Bradley, our local MP in the not distant future.

 

[MOCAŠ]

I always get the same answer, "we are not delegates" but as we all know that's just a cop out.

Why do you see that as a cop out? It's a statement of fact - a representative democracy does not send delegates to Parliament. As you've indicated, the general principle is the you elect the party that you best trust to govern in a way you find amenable, and then you let them get on with it. MPs' surgeries are an opportunity for constituents to bring matters of concern to the MP's attention, but it's very much up to the MP to decide whether or not they will take up the cause. They cannot (or at least, ought not) to be coerced into doing so.

 

[pipmk]

I am one who doesn't advocate the death penalty, however for different reasons to yours, equally I don't hold in distain those who's views are different to mine...the stupid who are too simple to grasp the obvious to more advanced minds.
The deterrent argument you use is a fallacy as the death penalty doesn't need to be such, rather like parking fines, which don't deter either, it's the penalty which is paid.
I do agree with one aspect of your rant, it is a complex issue, one which I very much doubt you have any better grasp of than the others who you chose to insult.
I reiterate I don't seek the return of the death penalty but there are many stronger arguments than the simplistic "clever people like me should have greater input than the stupid herd"

So, lets hear them, it would make a change from the ritualistic "eye for an eye" argument advanced by the popular press.

Far be it for me to suggest that people actually think before venting their spleen or question the "facts" they are presented by the media.

I don't "choose to insult" them, they do it for themselves by their predictable,simplistic,trite,knee jerk replies. Pose a simple question, wait for the predictable answers, nuance, complexity,what is that?

More than two minutes thought, no stock answer "Oh my brain hurts"


Bored,bored bored,people are so predictable and few more than on this forum once it isn't about MB cars. Does nobody actually exercise their brain any more?

30 plus years in the criminal courts and I don't have any answers,but at least I appreciate that the questions are complex and the answers likely to be even more so.

"Kill them all, let God sort them out" was one Popes answer,have we not moved on? No, I fear not.

 

[pipmk]

I vote, based upon what the various parties say they will do when in office.
Other than in a couple of instances I've been disappointed in the lack of vigour displayed by the elected once they have secured our votes.
In regard to efforts to change I always bring my concerns to the attention of the elected when I meet them, I always get the same answer, "we are not delegates" but as we all know that's just a cop out.
I hope to bring it to the attention of Karen Bradley, our local MP in the not distant future.

Newsflash!
Life is complex,it is not black and white but shades of grey.Answers are complex and nuanced, the law of unintended consequences waits in the wings. People are human,by and large they do their best. That is all we can ask or should ask.If you think you have the answer then stand for Parliament, see how many share your view.

 

[camerafodder]

So, lets hear them, it would make a change from the ritualistic "eye for an eye" argument advanced by the popular press.

Far be it for me to suggest that people actually think before venting their spleen or question the "facts" they are presented by the media.

I don't "choose to insult" them, they do it for themselves by their predictable,simplistic,trite,knee jerk replies. Pose a simple question, wait for the predictable answers, nuance, complexity,what is that?

More than two minutes thought, no stock answer "Oh my brain hurts"


Bored,bored bored,people are so predictable and few more than on this forum once it isn't about MB cars. Does nobody actually exercise their brain any more?

30 plus years in the criminal courts and I don't have any answers,but at least I appreciate that the questions are complex and the answers likely to be even more so.

"Kill them all, let God sort them out" was one Popes answer,have we not moved on? No, I fear not.

So as I asked before, any good ideas then?

 

[stevieb15]

Why do you see that as a cop out? It's a statement of fact - a representative democracy does not send delegates to Parliament. As you've indicated, the general principle is the you elect the party that you best trust to govern in a way you find amenable, and then you let them get on with it. MPs' surgeries are an opportunity for constituents to bring matters of concern to the MP's attention, but it's very much up to the MP to decide whether or not they will take up the cause. They cannot (or at least, ought not) to be coerced into doing so.

All accurate, however should they not do what they said they were going to do in order to gain votes?

 

[Deleted member 65149]

All accurate, however should they not do what they said they were going to do in order to gain votes?

Of course they SHOULD, but they only say what they're going to do in order to win votes. That is all most politicians are interested in: winning votes. Unfortunately doing what's best for the country isn't necessarily a vote winner, especially in the short time. From time to time they'll try to drift away from manifesto promises and do the right thing, but then we approach the next election so they have to give up. Therefore we'll never get what's best, only some of what the majority of voters THINK may be best.

 

[stevieb15]

So, lets hear them, it would make a change from the ritualistic "eye for an eye" argument advanced by the popular press.

Far be it for me to suggest that people actually think before venting their spleen or question the "facts" they are presented by the media.

I don't "choose to insult" them, they do it for themselves by their predictable,simplistic,trite,knee jerk replies. Pose a simple question, wait for the predictable answers, nuance, complexity,what is that?

More than two minutes thought, no stock answer "Oh my brain hurts"


Bored,bored bored,people are so predictable and few more than on this forum once it isn't about MB cars. Does nobody actually exercise their brain any more?

30 plus years in the criminal courts and I don't have any answers,but at least I appreciate that the questions are complex and the answers likely to be even more so.

"Kill them all, let God sort them out" was one Popes answer,have we not moved on? No, I fear not.

I have spent very little time in the criminal courts thankfully however I do know that the questions need not be complex nor the answers.
The most obvious barrier to the return of the death penalty is the people who run the process, CPS wouldn't prosecute, solicitors and barrister wouldn't prosecute or defend, juries wouldn't bring in guilty verdicts, judges wouldn't judge, or at least enough of the afore mentioned would absent themselves from the process to make it unworkable.
As you've chosen to reference your comments by virtue of your association with the process, what are you? For all I know you could be an usher or a QC, a solicitor, clerk, judge.

 

[marc.l]

I believe the problem for our country would be that any other countries sighed up to the bill of European rights would no longer be able to extradite criminals to countries that are no longer signed up to the bill . So any countries that our murders run to would not be able to send them back for trial .
The main reason we had such problems extraditing the hate preacher back to Jordan , can't have it both ways .

 

[pipmk]

Of course they SHOULD, but they only say what they're going to do in order to win votes. That is all most politicians are interested in: winning votes. Unfortunately doing what's best for the country isn't necessarily a vote winner, especially in the short time. From time to time they'll try to drift away from manifesto promises and do the right thing, but then we approach the next election so they have to give up. Therefore we'll never get what's best, only some of what the majority of voters THINK may be best.

Oddly enough that is what they have to do,win votes. Otherwise their opinions are worthless. the worlds best idea for the country is no use unless you get enough votes and the GBP is no more capable of looking beyond tomorrow than most politicians.
How can anyone say how they will vote in hypothetical circumstances at some point in the future over an issue that not yet arisen without all the relevant facts at the time?

The best one can do is pick the person whose views most represent yours. As they rightly say they are there to represent all,not just thhe small percentage that voted for them.

 

[pipmk]

I have spent very little time in the criminal courts thankfully however I do know that the questions need not be complex nor the answers.
The most obvious barrier to the return of the death penalty is the people who run the process, CPS wouldn't prosecute, solicitors and barrister wouldn't prosecute or defend, juries wouldn't bring in guilty verdicts, judges wouldn't judge, or at least enough of the afore mentioned would absent themselves from the process to make it unworkable.
As you've chosen to reference your comments by virtue of your association with the process, what are you? For all I know you could be an usher or a QC, a solicitor, clerk, judge.

If it really matters,Probation Officer,then CPS prosecuting solicitor with advocate rights. Would my opinion have been less valuable if I had been a usher or Crown Ct clerk,neither of which need to have been admitted?

You are partially right, Judges and counsel would have to judge and prosecute, they have no choice but juries in the past and probably in the future prove very reluctant to find guilt in capital cases.

I am intrigued to see you do not think the questions are usually complex,in minor matters,say the bulk of Magistrates cases no doubt you are right but in the matters where it is in dispute as to intent,as to culpability, as to identity as to motivation, as to public policy,as to deterrence,as to equity, not complex? I beg to differ.

Wife stabs husband after years of abuse,murder? manslaughter? Rather depends on circumstances doesn't it. Complex or simple?
Victim dies in pursuit of criminal. What is the criminals responsibility? Simple or complex?
14 year old hacks into computer causing massive losses. What is his liability?
Simple or complex?

I could give a page of such situations where it is not easy.

And camerafodder,no I don't have any answers,but at least I think there are questions, not just knee jerk responses.

 

[markjay]

We should not cringe whenever we hear the dreaded phrase 'Human Rights'.

The right to trial by Jury, the right to appeal - and by extension the right to a review - are fundamental elements in ensuring the protection of the individual from oppression or unfair treatment by the authorities and people in power.

A trial by Jury does not imply that all criminals will go free.

The right to appeal does not imply to all convictions will be overturned.

And the right to a review does not imply that all murderers will be released after 25 years.

These are just additional checks and balances to ensure that justice is done, and done properly.

 

[MOCAŠ]

Of course they SHOULD, but they only say what they're going to do in order to win votes. That is all most politicians are interested in: winning votes. Unfortunately doing what's best for the country isn't necessarily a vote winner, especially in the short time. From time to time they'll try to drift away from manifesto promises and do the right thing, but then we approach the next election so they have to give up. Therefore we'll never get what's best, only some of what the majority of voters THINK may be best.

I believe that for the most part, parties' manifestos are a genuine prospectus for what they wish to achieve if elected. That is, I don't believe they include items that they have no intention of delivering, in a purely cynical attempt to win votes. (I'll qualify that by saying that they may, on occasions, include items that they would deliver if they could, while knowing that their chances of being able to do so are slim at best.)

However, once they're in office, they have to deal with a constant barrage of events and crises that can conspire to knock even the most determined of governments off course. They also have to respond to the national/international climate, which can make it impracticable to implement something that they sincerely intended to do; or they may simply find that they cannot muster the required parliamentary backing to get something through.

There are many potential reasons why manifesto promises may not see the light of day, but I don't think that makes them worthless as promises.

 

[camerafodder]

And camerafodder,no I don't have any answers,but at least I think there are questions, not just knee jerk responses.

Mine is not a knee jerk response. In certain special circumstances such as the ones this thread is aimed at we have murderers sentenced to life without parole. In these cases (and they are rare) what is the point in keeping them alive? They can't contribute to society and they cost a lot to keep as pets.

 

[markjay]

Mine is not a knee jerk response. In certain special circumstances such as the ones this thread is aimed at we have murderers sentenced to life without parole. In these cases (and they are rare) what is the point in keeping them alive? They can't contribute to society and they cost a lot to keep as pets.

Cost does not come into it... the question is whether we as a society want to take someone's life. I think that by not doing so we send a resounding message regarding how we feel about the sanctity of human life.

The fact that we would not take a person's life regardless of how evil they may be demonstrates just how much we value life, any life.

 

[stevieb15]

If it really matters,Probation Officer,then CPS prosecuting solicitor with advocate rights. Would my opinion have been less valuable if I had been a usher or Crown Ct clerk,neither of which need to have been admitted?

You are partially right, Judges and counsel would have to judge and prosecute, they have no choice but juries in the past and probably in the future prove very reluctant to find guilt in capital cases.

I am intrigued to see you do not think the questions are usually complex,in minor matters,say the bulk of Magistrates cases no doubt you are right but in the matters where it is in dispute as to intent,as to culpability, as to identity as to motivation, as to public policy,as to deterrence,as to equity, not complex? I beg to differ.

Wife stabs husband after years of abuse,murder? manslaughter? Rather depends on circumstances doesn't it. Complex or simple?
Victim dies in pursuit of criminal. What is the criminals responsibility? Simple or complex?
14 year old hacks into computer causing massive losses. What is his liability?
Simple or complex?

I could give a page of such situations where it is not easy.

And camerafodder,no I don't have any answers,but at least I think there are questions, not just knee jerk responses.

It matters because you chose to reference your responses with the fact you have worked within the criminal system...if you had been a court usher for instance, although worthy, your comments would have less weight than those of a professional, which you are.
Re complexity, my comment was "need not be complex" which is different to "are (not) usually complex" and anyway I think you are responding out of context as I believe we are discussing an issue rather than instance(s) where as we all know " the devil is in the detail"

 

[grober]

The purpose of Human rights legislation to try establish fundamental rights which everyone is entitled to. The important word here is everyone. The idea that there are inalienable rights despite everything is core to the principle. That these core values should be changed depending on the person's origin, sexual orientation, religion, politics or what they have done makes the system worthless. Because who decides who has these rights otherwise? In Germany in the first half of the last century one man and a close group of his henchmen decided that being Jewish was one exception to the rule. There are numerous others. The issue in question is the perceived lack of ownership by the public of the existing Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights. The case for opting out of the European convention on Human Rights would be stronger if the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland already possessed similar statue of their own---- BUT THEY DON'T!!!! People are working on it but it appears to have stalled somewhat. The Commission on a Bill of Rights? report? A UK Bill of Rights? - The Choice Before Us
The UK has never adequately addressed the issue of a Bill of Rights or Constitution and what legislation there is remains a hotchpotch of fairly ancient acts of parliament. Bill of Rights 1689 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia We still can't have a Catholic monarch for example and I really doubt many will sleep more soundly in their beds tonight knowing that. We can hardly criticise the ECHR if we can't get our own act together. It throws up anomalies like this latest one all the time, but until someone comes up with something better it would foolhardy to opt out of it.