Giröulski
I’m not sure (from a constitutional perspective) however the fact that parliament is not going to be consulted, (re Bill of Rights – although not sure how the government can force this through) doesn’t sit well.
In that come Brexit 2019, the government basically wants to consult parliament after negotiations (and UK law) have been finalised.
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 17 seconds ago
Giröulski
I’m not sure (from a constitutional perspective) however the fact that parliament is not going to be consulted, (re Bill of Rights – although not sure how the government can force this through) doesn’t sit well.
In that come Brexit 2019, the government basically wants to consult parliament after negotiations (and UK law) have been finalised.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hopefully I'm not about to be too patronising, but I'm educated on this subject and I'll run a very quick crash course.
Basically in any State there are considered to be three main powers: the judiciary (courts), the executive (government and their emanations such as the police) and the legislature (Parliament). In many States, such as the US, these three powers are wholly separate which is why there is always congestion as the executive battles with the legislature.
In the UK we don't have this problem as a result of Parliamentary Supremacy and the fact that the government also controls Parliament. Parliamentary Supremacy means that no Parliament can bind a future Parliament. Anything that any Parliament wishes to do can be done with a simple majority. They can even legislate for France, but they're unlikely to listen. Parliament can do no wrong, theoretically. The closest we come to a constitution is convention, whereby repeated actions crystallise into expected actions.
For a Bill of Rights to exist as a source of individual rights against the State, Parliamentary Supremacy must end in my opinion. It is impossible to have them be above all else and also be bound by something.
The current ECHR works because Parliament is bound by practicality. In technicality, all rulings against the British State are declarations of incompatibility or advisory opinions, not actual rulings. However, Britain cannot ignore the ECHR and remain a member of the EU as other Member States will seek to sanction Britain based on its rulings. Although the ECHR emanates from the Council of Europe, its teeth come from the EU.
Without that bite, what is there to bind a British government or Parliament? The truth is simple: nothing. Which is why they want to do this.
Don't the populace make the parliament?
We get who we vote or don't vote for.
And in practice we vote for who Murdoch tells us to vote for.
Why do people assume we as a nation are able to uphold Human Rights?
Do you really think we must be forced into having any human rights in our law and left to our own devices we will devolve into some sort of tyrannical state?
Or could we actually apply common sense to Human Rights with (to use one posted earlier) vicitms rights put before the criminals. Maybe everyone would be tolerated and not like the lefties on here who only tolerate people who agree with their political views.
Giröulski
Good post, (had to read it twice ) as I noted I don’t confess to be an expert (far from it!).
Was also reading an interesting article at lunch in regard to the upcoming court case(s).
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37576654
^Why do people assume we as a nation are NOT able to uphold Human Rights?
corrected.
comment by Giröulski Alt-153 and Alt-160 forever (U14971)
posted 3 minutes ago
That Daily Mail article doesn't prove anything. It's the people that the State dislikes who are most likely to have their human rights abused and therefore the most in need of protection.
I read into the Abu Qatada stuff. Basically we weren't allowed to send him wrapped in a bow to be tortured. Once Theresa May stopped being an incompetent who played to the crowds, a simple agreement was reached and he was on his way. Which was absolutely right, unless you think he should be tortured before his trial.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Except the case he brought against deportation wasn't to stop him being 'wrapped in a bow to be tortured' but because SOME of the evidence used against him at his trial in Jordan MAY have been obtained through torture.
Now I'm sorry but giving a suspected terrorist (but proven radical hate preacher) £2,500 and letting him walk away scot-free because he thinks some evidence against him might have been (not has been but might have been) acquired through torture really gives out the wrong message.
What about the paedophile Rupert Massey? Sexually abuses 3 schoolboys but is awarded £3,000 (nearly the same as one of his victims) because the 4 years it took to bring him to trial left him 'stressed'. Really? How stressed were the schoolboys he abused?
It appears that if you don't like how you're going to be treated after being caught breaking the law then you can sue the UK government under the ECHR.
comment by I am gooner now (U16927)
posted 1 minute ago
Why do people assume we as a nation are able to uphold Human Rights?
Do you really think we must be forced into having any human rights in our law and left to our own devices we will devolve into some sort of tyrannical state?
Or could we actually apply common sense to Human Rights with (to use one posted earlier) vicitms rights put before the criminals. Maybe everyone would be tolerated and not like the lefties on here who only tolerate people who agree with their political views.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because even with the mechanisms available now we abuse Human Rights. I softly referenced the Abu Ghraib prison earlier as an example of where our executive (army) abused them. There are many examples of where the executive abuses human rights. For example, during the Olympics people on benefits were forced to do work for a subcontractor who, having shipped them in from around the country, made them sleep under a bridge. No joke.
Britain actually has one of the highest amount of ECHR cases in Europe. We're comparable to Russia in that regard. It is impossible to pretend that Britain has a good record on Human Rights.
The reality is simple. Where is no political expediency for human rights, they are ignored. We're a mini-USA in regards to our obscene army worship. It is impossible to criticise our armed forces and one must always pay lip service to them if they want a political career. Despite the propaganda, we're not all that well behaved abroad when given guns and little oversight. We're not as bad as the Americans, of course, but that's not the yardstick.
As for putting victims' rights first, it is nothing but a soundbite mate. It doesn't actually mean anything. What does putting a victim's right first actually mean? Do we not give the accused a fair trial? Do we torture them to procure "evidence" against them? Do we just allow the mob to do what they want with them? Is this how you put a victim's rights first? If that's so then you're merely victimising a new individual. That is not justice. We have a legal system to fairly judge and deal with criminals. Anything else is a witchhunt.
comment by sᴉɥƃuǝlפ (U19365)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Giröulski Alt-153 and Alt-160 forever (U14971)
posted 3 minutes ago
That Daily Mail article doesn't prove anything. It's the people that the State dislikes who are most likely to have their human rights abused and therefore the most in need of protection.
I read into the Abu Qatada stuff. Basically we weren't allowed to send him wrapped in a bow to be tortured. Once Theresa May stopped being an incompetent who played to the crowds, a simple agreement was reached and he was on his way. Which was absolutely right, unless you think he should be tortured before his trial.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Except the case he brought against deportation wasn't to stop him being 'wrapped in a bow to be tortured' but because SOME of the evidence used against him at his trial in Jordan MAY have been obtained through torture.
Now I'm sorry but giving a suspected terrorist (but proven radical hate preacher) £2,500 and letting him walk away scot-free because he thinks some evidence against him might have been (not has been but might have been) acquired through torture really gives out the wrong message.
What about the paedophile Rupert Massey? Sexually abuses 3 schoolboys but is awarded £3,000 (nearly the same as one of his victims) because the 4 years it took to bring him to trial left him 'stressed'. Really? How stressed were the schoolboys he abused?
It appears that if you don't like how you're going to be treated after being caught breaking the law then you can sue the UK government under the ECHR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're right, but there was also a fear that he would face further torture. One of specific breaches was that his right to a fair trial would not be met. And he was right. If one has been tortured, they have not had a fair trial. There is overwhelming evidence that shows torture evidence to be wholly useless. A tortured victim will say what they believe the torturer to want to end the torture. That's it.
What's the wrong message being sent by forcing Jordan to reach a formal agreement NOT to use torture evidence in a trial? We could have got rid of Qatada years earlier if we decided to do that in the first place. The only reason we didn't was for political posturing so that the Daily Mail can tell you about how horrible human rights are.
I don't know about the Rupert Massey case, and a quick google isn't very illuminating. What I will say is that the money awarded to him is separate from the judgement against him. If there was a procedural wrong then it is normal to see that redressed. It is not related to the fact that he committed rape. An individual does not lose all their rights upon the committing a crime. You cannot logically argue against that.
comment by I am gooner now (U16927)
posted 5 minutes ago
Or could we actually apply common sense to Human Rights with (to use one posted earlier) vicitms rights put before the criminals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It would be nice wouldn't it but then where would the Human Rights lawyers get their money from?
It really is the fault of lawyers. They make legislation complicated so that lawyers are the only ones to fully understand it and so that they can twist it for their own purposes.
The ECHR was used to give the families of the 96 closure. Article 2 'The right to life' was used to bring about the new inquests.
The same article was used against SAS soldiers when they 'unlawfully' killed 3 IRΑ terrorists in Gibraltar. The reasoning behind it was they weren't authorised to shoot the terrorists. They were only there on a reconnaissance mission.
I have no sympathy for terrorists of any persuasion. If they are known to have committed terrorist acts which have resulted in loss of life then they should forfeit ANY rights they once had. After all, what rights did they grant their victims?
"Terrorism" is such an emotive word isn't it. It allows people to divorce themselves from the principles of logic and reason.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
I just googled Abu Ghraib and that was US, not British soldiers. They prosecuted some of the perpetrators as well for a breach of Human Rights.
If you are going to use something for an argument you should at least use something that relates to the people you are talking about. And in this case it was deemed unlawful and resulted in some people going to prison for it. How the fack is US soldiers committing HR breaches and going to prison for it relevant to future British HR laws?
comment by Giröulski Alt-153 and Alt-160 forever (U14971)
posted 4 minutes ago
You're right, but there was also a fear that he would face further torture. One of specific breaches was that his right to a fair trial would not be met. And he was right. If one has been tortured, they have not had a fair trial. There is overwhelming evidence that shows torture evidence to be wholly useless. A tortured victim will say what they believe the torturer to want to end the torture. That's it.
What's the wrong message being sent by forcing Jordan to reach a formal agreement NOT to use torture evidence in a trial?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I totally agree with your first paragraph BUT (I'll quote a soundbite from the linked article).
"Al Qaeda's chief European agent, was paid £2,500 for 'unlawful detention' after being held indefinitely without trial following the September 11 attacks - despite Strasbourg accepting he was a threat to the nation. The ECHR also agreed to block his deportation to Jordan on terror charges."
The thing is if the government had said he was a threat to himself, they would have been able to detain him indefinitely under the mental health act.
Crazy eh!
comment by I am gooner now (U16927)
posted 2 minutes ago
I just googled Abu Ghraib and that was US, not British soldiers. They prosecuted some of the perpetrators as well for a breach of Human Rights.
If you are going to use something for an argument you should at least use something that relates to the people you are talking about. And in this case it was deemed unlawful and resulted in some people going to prison for it. How the fack is US soldiers committing HR breaches and going to prison for it relevant to future British HR laws?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I could have blooming sworn some British soldiers were involved. I think it may have been a failure to report incidents that they have seen now I think about it. I haven't looked closely at Abu Ghraib since A level Psychology though. I thoroughly apologise for the mistake.
comment by sᴉɥƃuǝlפ (U19365)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Giröulski Alt-153 and Alt-160 forever (U14971)
posted 4 minutes ago
You're right, but there was also a fear that he would face further torture. One of specific breaches was that his right to a fair trial would not be met. And he was right. If one has been tortured, they have not had a fair trial. There is overwhelming evidence that shows torture evidence to be wholly useless. A tortured victim will say what they believe the torturer to want to end the torture. That's it.
What's the wrong message being sent by forcing Jordan to reach a formal agreement NOT to use torture evidence in a trial?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I totally agree with your first paragraph BUT (I'll quote a soundbite from the linked article).
"Al Qaeda's chief European agent, was paid £2,500 for 'unlawful detention' after being held indefinitely without trial following the September 11 attacks - despite Strasbourg accepting he was a threat to the nation. The ECHR also agreed to block his deportation to Jordan on terror charges."
The thing is if the government had said he was a threat to himself, they would have been able to detain him indefinitely under the mental health act.
Crazy eh!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah that's true. I should point out that being detained under the mental health act is a different kettle of fish. Nicer accommodation (in theory) for a start. Also, indefinite detainment is nearly never permanent.
It's the mental health area that's the most weird, in truth. It's very grey when you determine that you must take away the agency of an adult.
I remember reading of similar HRA abuse cases at British military installations in Basra. Although nowhere near on the scale of Abu Ghraib.
A better case is the "Five techniques" case whereby Britain tortured suspected IR A members. At the time it was not deemed torture (mid 70's) but in today's world there's little doubt that it would be due to advancements in our understanding of psychology. They were still treated as illegal at the time.
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
I remember reading of similar HRA abuse cases at British military installations in Basra. Although nowhere near on the scale of Abu Ghraib.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That might be it. I'm doing all of this off of the top of my head.
comment by I am gooner now (U16927)
posted 52 minutes ago
Why do people assume we as a nation are able to uphold Human Rights?
Do you really think we must be forced into having any human rights in our law and left to our own devices we will devolve into some sort of tyrannical state?
Or could we actually apply common sense to Human Rights with (to use one posted earlier) vicitms rights put before the criminals. Maybe everyone would be tolerated and not like the lefties on here who only tolerate people who agree with their political views.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The trouble is, when people say we should "use common sense" in this sort of context, what they tend to mean is "circumvent due process", and condemn people based on their own prejudice.
Just read that Fujitsu are the latest company to up sticks and are leaving the UK.
The reasons however are completely, 100%, without a doubt, unquestionably, and undeniably unrelated to Brexit.
Just gonna leave this here and I'm sure Ashley is not alone.
http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/which-eu-law-are-you-looking-forward-to-losing/
So as an example of Human Rights you are using the rights of people who have said they want to commit terrorist atrocities in the West and kill non-Muslims which Al Quaeda have said. While I would not condone torture in any circumstances using people who want to commit mass murder on a huge scale as an example of people whose human rights have been contravened is not a very persuasive argument.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Sign in if you want to comment
Jeez, when did this happen?
Page 12 of 14
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14
posted on 11/10/16
Giröulski
I’m not sure (from a constitutional perspective) however the fact that parliament is not going to be consulted, (re Bill of Rights – although not sure how the government can force this through) doesn’t sit well.
In that come Brexit 2019, the government basically wants to consult parliament after negotiations (and UK law) have been finalised.
posted on 11/10/16
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 17 seconds ago
Giröulski
I’m not sure (from a constitutional perspective) however the fact that parliament is not going to be consulted, (re Bill of Rights – although not sure how the government can force this through) doesn’t sit well.
In that come Brexit 2019, the government basically wants to consult parliament after negotiations (and UK law) have been finalised.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hopefully I'm not about to be too patronising, but I'm educated on this subject and I'll run a very quick crash course.
Basically in any State there are considered to be three main powers: the judiciary (courts), the executive (government and their emanations such as the police) and the legislature (Parliament). In many States, such as the US, these three powers are wholly separate which is why there is always congestion as the executive battles with the legislature.
In the UK we don't have this problem as a result of Parliamentary Supremacy and the fact that the government also controls Parliament. Parliamentary Supremacy means that no Parliament can bind a future Parliament. Anything that any Parliament wishes to do can be done with a simple majority. They can even legislate for France, but they're unlikely to listen. Parliament can do no wrong, theoretically. The closest we come to a constitution is convention, whereby repeated actions crystallise into expected actions.
For a Bill of Rights to exist as a source of individual rights against the State, Parliamentary Supremacy must end in my opinion. It is impossible to have them be above all else and also be bound by something.
The current ECHR works because Parliament is bound by practicality. In technicality, all rulings against the British State are declarations of incompatibility or advisory opinions, not actual rulings. However, Britain cannot ignore the ECHR and remain a member of the EU as other Member States will seek to sanction Britain based on its rulings. Although the ECHR emanates from the Council of Europe, its teeth come from the EU.
Without that bite, what is there to bind a British government or Parliament? The truth is simple: nothing. Which is why they want to do this.
posted on 11/10/16
Don't the populace make the parliament?
We get who we vote or don't vote for.
posted on 11/10/16
And in practice we vote for who Murdoch tells us to vote for.
posted on 11/10/16
Why do people assume we as a nation are able to uphold Human Rights?
Do you really think we must be forced into having any human rights in our law and left to our own devices we will devolve into some sort of tyrannical state?
Or could we actually apply common sense to Human Rights with (to use one posted earlier) vicitms rights put before the criminals. Maybe everyone would be tolerated and not like the lefties on here who only tolerate people who agree with their political views.
posted on 11/10/16
Giröulski
Good post, (had to read it twice ) as I noted I don’t confess to be an expert (far from it!).
Was also reading an interesting article at lunch in regard to the upcoming court case(s).
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37576654
posted on 11/10/16
^Why do people assume we as a nation are NOT able to uphold Human Rights?
corrected.
posted on 11/10/16
comment by Giröulski Alt-153 and Alt-160 forever (U14971)
posted 3 minutes ago
That Daily Mail article doesn't prove anything. It's the people that the State dislikes who are most likely to have their human rights abused and therefore the most in need of protection.
I read into the Abu Qatada stuff. Basically we weren't allowed to send him wrapped in a bow to be tortured. Once Theresa May stopped being an incompetent who played to the crowds, a simple agreement was reached and he was on his way. Which was absolutely right, unless you think he should be tortured before his trial.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Except the case he brought against deportation wasn't to stop him being 'wrapped in a bow to be tortured' but because SOME of the evidence used against him at his trial in Jordan MAY have been obtained through torture.
Now I'm sorry but giving a suspected terrorist (but proven radical hate preacher) £2,500 and letting him walk away scot-free because he thinks some evidence against him might have been (not has been but might have been) acquired through torture really gives out the wrong message.
What about the paedophile Rupert Massey? Sexually abuses 3 schoolboys but is awarded £3,000 (nearly the same as one of his victims) because the 4 years it took to bring him to trial left him 'stressed'. Really? How stressed were the schoolboys he abused?
It appears that if you don't like how you're going to be treated after being caught breaking the law then you can sue the UK government under the ECHR.
posted on 11/10/16
comment by I am gooner now (U16927)
posted 1 minute ago
Why do people assume we as a nation are able to uphold Human Rights?
Do you really think we must be forced into having any human rights in our law and left to our own devices we will devolve into some sort of tyrannical state?
Or could we actually apply common sense to Human Rights with (to use one posted earlier) vicitms rights put before the criminals. Maybe everyone would be tolerated and not like the lefties on here who only tolerate people who agree with their political views.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because even with the mechanisms available now we abuse Human Rights. I softly referenced the Abu Ghraib prison earlier as an example of where our executive (army) abused them. There are many examples of where the executive abuses human rights. For example, during the Olympics people on benefits were forced to do work for a subcontractor who, having shipped them in from around the country, made them sleep under a bridge. No joke.
Britain actually has one of the highest amount of ECHR cases in Europe. We're comparable to Russia in that regard. It is impossible to pretend that Britain has a good record on Human Rights.
The reality is simple. Where is no political expediency for human rights, they are ignored. We're a mini-USA in regards to our obscene army worship. It is impossible to criticise our armed forces and one must always pay lip service to them if they want a political career. Despite the propaganda, we're not all that well behaved abroad when given guns and little oversight. We're not as bad as the Americans, of course, but that's not the yardstick.
As for putting victims' rights first, it is nothing but a soundbite mate. It doesn't actually mean anything. What does putting a victim's right first actually mean? Do we not give the accused a fair trial? Do we torture them to procure "evidence" against them? Do we just allow the mob to do what they want with them? Is this how you put a victim's rights first? If that's so then you're merely victimising a new individual. That is not justice. We have a legal system to fairly judge and deal with criminals. Anything else is a witchhunt.
posted on 11/10/16
comment by sᴉɥƃuǝlפ (U19365)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by Giröulski Alt-153 and Alt-160 forever (U14971)
posted 3 minutes ago
That Daily Mail article doesn't prove anything. It's the people that the State dislikes who are most likely to have their human rights abused and therefore the most in need of protection.
I read into the Abu Qatada stuff. Basically we weren't allowed to send him wrapped in a bow to be tortured. Once Theresa May stopped being an incompetent who played to the crowds, a simple agreement was reached and he was on his way. Which was absolutely right, unless you think he should be tortured before his trial.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Except the case he brought against deportation wasn't to stop him being 'wrapped in a bow to be tortured' but because SOME of the evidence used against him at his trial in Jordan MAY have been obtained through torture.
Now I'm sorry but giving a suspected terrorist (but proven radical hate preacher) £2,500 and letting him walk away scot-free because he thinks some evidence against him might have been (not has been but might have been) acquired through torture really gives out the wrong message.
What about the paedophile Rupert Massey? Sexually abuses 3 schoolboys but is awarded £3,000 (nearly the same as one of his victims) because the 4 years it took to bring him to trial left him 'stressed'. Really? How stressed were the schoolboys he abused?
It appears that if you don't like how you're going to be treated after being caught breaking the law then you can sue the UK government under the ECHR.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You're right, but there was also a fear that he would face further torture. One of specific breaches was that his right to a fair trial would not be met. And he was right. If one has been tortured, they have not had a fair trial. There is overwhelming evidence that shows torture evidence to be wholly useless. A tortured victim will say what they believe the torturer to want to end the torture. That's it.
What's the wrong message being sent by forcing Jordan to reach a formal agreement NOT to use torture evidence in a trial? We could have got rid of Qatada years earlier if we decided to do that in the first place. The only reason we didn't was for political posturing so that the Daily Mail can tell you about how horrible human rights are.
I don't know about the Rupert Massey case, and a quick google isn't very illuminating. What I will say is that the money awarded to him is separate from the judgement against him. If there was a procedural wrong then it is normal to see that redressed. It is not related to the fact that he committed rape. An individual does not lose all their rights upon the committing a crime. You cannot logically argue against that.
posted on 11/10/16
comment by I am gooner now (U16927)
posted 5 minutes ago
Or could we actually apply common sense to Human Rights with (to use one posted earlier) vicitms rights put before the criminals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It would be nice wouldn't it but then where would the Human Rights lawyers get their money from?
It really is the fault of lawyers. They make legislation complicated so that lawyers are the only ones to fully understand it and so that they can twist it for their own purposes.
The ECHR was used to give the families of the 96 closure. Article 2 'The right to life' was used to bring about the new inquests.
The same article was used against SAS soldiers when they 'unlawfully' killed 3 IRΑ terrorists in Gibraltar. The reasoning behind it was they weren't authorised to shoot the terrorists. They were only there on a reconnaissance mission.
I have no sympathy for terrorists of any persuasion. If they are known to have committed terrorist acts which have resulted in loss of life then they should forfeit ANY rights they once had. After all, what rights did they grant their victims?
posted on 11/10/16
"Terrorism" is such an emotive word isn't it. It allows people to divorce themselves from the principles of logic and reason.
posted on 11/10/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 11/10/16
I just googled Abu Ghraib and that was US, not British soldiers. They prosecuted some of the perpetrators as well for a breach of Human Rights.
If you are going to use something for an argument you should at least use something that relates to the people you are talking about. And in this case it was deemed unlawful and resulted in some people going to prison for it. How the fack is US soldiers committing HR breaches and going to prison for it relevant to future British HR laws?
posted on 11/10/16
comment by Giröulski Alt-153 and Alt-160 forever (U14971)
posted 4 minutes ago
You're right, but there was also a fear that he would face further torture. One of specific breaches was that his right to a fair trial would not be met. And he was right. If one has been tortured, they have not had a fair trial. There is overwhelming evidence that shows torture evidence to be wholly useless. A tortured victim will say what they believe the torturer to want to end the torture. That's it.
What's the wrong message being sent by forcing Jordan to reach a formal agreement NOT to use torture evidence in a trial?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I totally agree with your first paragraph BUT (I'll quote a soundbite from the linked article).
"Al Qaeda's chief European agent, was paid £2,500 for 'unlawful detention' after being held indefinitely without trial following the September 11 attacks - despite Strasbourg accepting he was a threat to the nation. The ECHR also agreed to block his deportation to Jordan on terror charges."
The thing is if the government had said he was a threat to himself, they would have been able to detain him indefinitely under the mental health act.
Crazy eh!
posted on 11/10/16
comment by I am gooner now (U16927)
posted 2 minutes ago
I just googled Abu Ghraib and that was US, not British soldiers. They prosecuted some of the perpetrators as well for a breach of Human Rights.
If you are going to use something for an argument you should at least use something that relates to the people you are talking about. And in this case it was deemed unlawful and resulted in some people going to prison for it. How the fack is US soldiers committing HR breaches and going to prison for it relevant to future British HR laws?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I could have blooming sworn some British soldiers were involved. I think it may have been a failure to report incidents that they have seen now I think about it. I haven't looked closely at Abu Ghraib since A level Psychology though. I thoroughly apologise for the mistake.
posted on 11/10/16
comment by sᴉɥƃuǝlפ (U19365)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Giröulski Alt-153 and Alt-160 forever (U14971)
posted 4 minutes ago
You're right, but there was also a fear that he would face further torture. One of specific breaches was that his right to a fair trial would not be met. And he was right. If one has been tortured, they have not had a fair trial. There is overwhelming evidence that shows torture evidence to be wholly useless. A tortured victim will say what they believe the torturer to want to end the torture. That's it.
What's the wrong message being sent by forcing Jordan to reach a formal agreement NOT to use torture evidence in a trial?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I totally agree with your first paragraph BUT (I'll quote a soundbite from the linked article).
"Al Qaeda's chief European agent, was paid £2,500 for 'unlawful detention' after being held indefinitely without trial following the September 11 attacks - despite Strasbourg accepting he was a threat to the nation. The ECHR also agreed to block his deportation to Jordan on terror charges."
The thing is if the government had said he was a threat to himself, they would have been able to detain him indefinitely under the mental health act.
Crazy eh!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yeah that's true. I should point out that being detained under the mental health act is a different kettle of fish. Nicer accommodation (in theory) for a start. Also, indefinite detainment is nearly never permanent.
It's the mental health area that's the most weird, in truth. It's very grey when you determine that you must take away the agency of an adult.
posted on 11/10/16
I remember reading of similar HRA abuse cases at British military installations in Basra. Although nowhere near on the scale of Abu Ghraib.
posted on 11/10/16
A better case is the "Five techniques" case whereby Britain tortured suspected IR A members. At the time it was not deemed torture (mid 70's) but in today's world there's little doubt that it would be due to advancements in our understanding of psychology. They were still treated as illegal at the time.
posted on 11/10/16
comment by What would Stuart Pearce do? (U3126)
posted 1 minute ago
I remember reading of similar HRA abuse cases at British military installations in Basra. Although nowhere near on the scale of Abu Ghraib.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That might be it. I'm doing all of this off of the top of my head.
posted on 11/10/16
comment by I am gooner now (U16927)
posted 52 minutes ago
Why do people assume we as a nation are able to uphold Human Rights?
Do you really think we must be forced into having any human rights in our law and left to our own devices we will devolve into some sort of tyrannical state?
Or could we actually apply common sense to Human Rights with (to use one posted earlier) vicitms rights put before the criminals. Maybe everyone would be tolerated and not like the lefties on here who only tolerate people who agree with their political views.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The trouble is, when people say we should "use common sense" in this sort of context, what they tend to mean is "circumvent due process", and condemn people based on their own prejudice.
posted on 11/10/16
Just read that Fujitsu are the latest company to up sticks and are leaving the UK.
The reasons however are completely, 100%, without a doubt, unquestionably, and undeniably unrelated to Brexit.
posted on 11/10/16
Just gonna leave this here and I'm sure Ashley is not alone.
http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/james-obrien/which-eu-law-are-you-looking-forward-to-losing/
posted on 11/10/16
So as an example of Human Rights you are using the rights of people who have said they want to commit terrorist atrocities in the West and kill non-Muslims which Al Quaeda have said. While I would not condone torture in any circumstances using people who want to commit mass murder on a huge scale as an example of people whose human rights have been contravened is not a very persuasive argument.
posted on 11/10/16
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Page 12 of 14
10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14