Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#1
If this doesn't get BarryW's blood boiling and add fuel to the UKIP campaign then nothing will but it has been revealed that the hated European human rights act is costing the UK more than £9 billion a year.
ECHR expert Dr Lee Rotherham, who calculated the enormous sums, said: "The cash we pay out is like a mountain. It's monstrous. Those most to blame are the ones who abuse the courts to pursue their particular agenda." Dr Rotherham said the ECHR has cost us £42billion since it came into force in 1953. But there has been a sharp increase in the past five years.
There are now at least 2,000 human rights lawyers in the UK. Big earners include the firms Chivers Solicitors and Leigh Day who represent UK prisoners demanding the right to vote. One legal source said: "There are some companies who have made millions."
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#2
You certainly know how to pick the topics Marek - like a human form of the Daily Express - and many on here condemn that paper.
I have no reason to think what you've said is not true (I've read about these cases often enough) and it has been said many times on here, that with Human Rights, there must be (should be) Responsibilities.
You can't have, for example, a case where a burglar takes a house-owner to court because he injured himself whilst going about his normal (illegal) work.
If common-sense does not prevail, society will suffer - is suffering.
Why does the Government - any Government, not have the balls to change it ?
Roger
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#3
well worth the money spent,but thats a matter of opinion.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#4
The European Convention of Human Rights is nothing to do tith the EU so sadly it would be wrong to use it as ammo against the EU.
Apart from that, yes it is a farce and we need to get out of it (as well as the EU) and get shot of our own HRA as well.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#5
I wonder how much this is each per year? It strikes me that for some 'cost' is explained in terms of "less than a pint of milk a week" while costs...what can I do but state it plainly...incurred defending the individual against state tyranny are only to be expressed in Billions?
There are some; born peasants, some who have peasantry thrust upon them and others who accept their lowly status because, "you cannot argue with the numbers".
I'll bet Dover and other towns around the country would find the money and the time to smarten the place up IF there was an impending visit from *****, fill in the blank as you see fit, or as you are instructed.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#6
surely it would be more appropriate for each country to have their own human rights act?
most values are shared but individual countries each have issues of greater importance than others.
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
#7
I know where you are coming from Howard, but surely fundamental human rights transcend national borders and politics
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#8
The problem is how these right are being over-interpreted by the Courts. In the case of the ECHR they are interpreting it in ways its founders, in the immediate aftermath of WW2, would never recognise now.
The British HRA is a complete farce that ignores responsibilities and duties that are inseperable from rights and that is the core of the problem we have. Far to much emphasis on rights earning plenty of dosh for lawyers like Sherie Blair without reference to any kind of duty.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#9
there are minor foibles ross, off of the top of my head:
a) the french and belgians banning the burkha and no sign of any other european country following suit.
b) the french police being banned from drinking on duty, this goes against a frenchman's right to have a beer or wine with his lunch.
c) the banning of the building of minarets in switzerland, no other country seems bothered.
d) i read that the proposed smoking ban in greece is likely to be ignored, not only because they have a high proportion of smokers but more to do with being told what to do by the government.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#10
i had a larf whilst out in spain many years ago
i went to see the local footy club play a small club
ar half time the players headed to thre bar as did the referee lol
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
#11
MMMMM
Ok the CRS have not had alcohol banned - their allowance has been withdrawn, as the French state needs to reduce costs - plod does not like not getting his free booze - hardly a fundamental tight.
the banning of the burka is about the conflict between rights and duties as pointed out by Barry - Muslims have a right to wear the clothing of their choice but they also have a responsibility to make themselves identifiable to the officers of the state
many European nations have paid lip service only to the smoking ban not just Greece
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
#12
There are basic human rights, right across the Globe Ross, as you say, but Howard does have a point about tailoring to each Country.
Like BarryW I cannot see how every one can have the full Human Rights if they do not, alongside that, have responsibility and duty too. They must go together.
We'll be supporting criminals and others of a dubious character, over decent law-abiding citizens - we do that now sadly.
The whole HR and judiciary system here needs a really thorough overhaul and "normal" people need to feel they are protected by the law, by the State. The State should have (does have) a legal obligation to protect its citizens; in many, many cases that simply does not happen.
Roger
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#13
roger;
have to say i agree with a lot of your last posting
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,709
#14
Roger & Barry - I have always maintained that Rights must be balanced with the corresponding duties and responsibilities, so we dont necessarily disagree on that point.
However, some rights must surely be immutable irrespective of behaviour etc. e.g. the right to a fair trial, the right to a trial without undue delay, the right to shelter that is fit for human habitation etc. This is not molly coddling criminals this is treating people the way we would expect to be treated, if we were unfortunate enough to find ourselves in a similar position
Perhaps a Citizenship Bill where rights, duties and responsibilities are all given equal prominence and weight should be promulgated to replace the HRA
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
