| Segregated Prisoners.Is this right. 14:14 - Jul 29 with 3053 views | perchrockjack |
In 2003 a plain clothes police officer was stabbed to death in Manchester
The assailant has, whilst in prison tried to kill another fellow prisoner and was segregated.
He s appealed and decision has been found to breach his human rights.
Seems madness to me.
It could mean any prisoner can now rightly claim not to be segregated against his wishes. |  |
| |  |
| Segregated Prisoners.Is this right. on 17:35 - Jul 30 with 1090 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Segregated Prisoners.Is this right. on 17:28 - Jul 30 by Highjack |
Well he's been convicted as an adult for possessing the sickest child images imaginable and then subsequently released on parole, presumably to be given a nice new identity, a clean slate and a comfortable life.
He's being protected,some would go as far as saying rewarded.
Just used this as an example but this one could roll and roll. |
Still nothing to do with the HRA. |  |
| |
| Segregated Prisoners.Is this right. on 17:44 - Jul 30 with 1073 views | Highjack |
| Segregated Prisoners.Is this right. on 17:35 - Jul 30 by exiledclaseboy |
Still nothing to do with the HRA. |
There was a legal challenge against their anonymity claiming it breached the article in the act saying that people should be treated equally by the authorities.
It was thrown out. |  |
| |
| Segregated Prisoners.Is this right. on 17:51 - Jul 30 with 1070 views | perchrockjack |
IT is everything to do with human rights.
Ironically, the main rights denied are those who ve been killed,maimed,injured and /or families who ve lost loved ones.
Now, granted Im a kint but I put victims and their rights before the purportrators every time.Every day of the week
You brutalise someone should impinge on your human rights as you are taking the same away from a victim and a greater family network who are bereaved.
Just wtf is wrong with looking after those who are on the receiving end.
Everybody has a choice to kill/maim/rob/rape etc but a victim does NOT have the choice.
There is also nothing wrong a all with punishing offenders harshly and everything wrong with allowing people to offend again- with inevitable results.
The liberal attitude to crime in this and many countries has been tried for years and clearly failed. Its not in the USA ,I hear you say; true but at least a killer cant kill from the grave | |
| |
| Segregated Prisoners.Is this right. on 19:45 - Jul 30 with 1031 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Segregated Prisoners.Is this right. on 17:44 - Jul 30 by Highjack |
There was a legal challenge against their anonymity claiming it breached the article in the act saying that people should be treated equally by the authorities.
It was thrown out. |
Interesting. I hadn't heard. Which article is that? | |
| |
| Segregated Prisoners.Is this right. on 20:34 - Jul 30 with 1014 views | Highjack |
"Only Mary Bell, who killed two small boys in 1968 when she was 12, has had the benefit of such a wide-ranging injunction. But in her case, the order was granted to protect not her but her daughter, who was under 18 and a ward of court.
There was no power at the time to grant anonymity to an adult. But Dame Elizabeth, president of the high court's family division, ruled yesterday that the new Human Rights Act, with its duty on the state to protect the right to life, gave the court jurisdiction to make such an order for the first time."
""In the exceptional circum stances of this case and applying English domestic law and the right to life enshrined in article 2 of the European convention, I have come to the conclusion that I am compelled to take steps in the almost unique circumstances of this case to protect their lives and physical well-being."
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/jan/09/bulger.claredyer1
So it's everything to do with the Human Rights Act. | |
| |
| Segregated Prisoners.Is this right. on 20:42 - Jul 30 with 1003 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Segregated Prisoners.Is this right. on 20:34 - Jul 30 by Highjack |
"Only Mary Bell, who killed two small boys in 1968 when she was 12, has had the benefit of such a wide-ranging injunction. But in her case, the order was granted to protect not her but her daughter, who was under 18 and a ward of court.
There was no power at the time to grant anonymity to an adult. But Dame Elizabeth, president of the high court's family division, ruled yesterday that the new Human Rights Act, with its duty on the state to protect the right to life, gave the court jurisdiction to make such an order for the first time."
""In the exceptional circum stances of this case and applying English domestic law and the right to life enshrined in article 2 of the European convention, I have come to the conclusion that I am compelled to take steps in the almost unique circumstances of this case to protect their lives and physical well-being."
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/jan/09/bulger.claredyer1
So it's everything to do with the Human Rights Act. |
If you'd bothered to do that research before pontificating you could ha be saved me pushing you towards googling it. The order could (and probably would) have been made HRA or not.
Anyway, this case that was dismissed about the article in the HRA you mentioned earlier?
Back to Google for you. [Post edited 30 Jul 2015 20:44]
| |
| |
| Segregated Prisoners.Is this right. on 21:01 - Jul 30 with 980 views | Pacemaker |
| Segregated Prisoners.Is this right. on 17:44 - Jul 30 by Highjack |
There was a legal challenge against their anonymity claiming it breached the article in the act saying that people should be treated equally by the authorities.
It was thrown out. |
There is an argument to say that whatever the person is today, is as a result of being damaged by the state deciding to treat children as adults.
Treat people like animals and they act like animals?
That's not to say that nature produced an animal as a child and he has continued in that vein.
I know very little about the case but I understand that one of the children has managed to be rehabilitated completely and is not known to the services or police.
HRA freedoms that individuals in the UK have access to. They include:
Right to life
Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment
Right to liberty and security
Freedom from slavery and forced labour
Right to a fair trial
No punishment without law
Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence
Freedom of thought, belief and religion
Freedom of expression
Freedom of assembly and association
Right to marry and start a family
Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms
Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
Right to education
Right to participate in free elections [Post edited 30 Jul 2015 21:06]
|  |
| Life is an adventure or nothing at all. |
| |
| Segregated Prisoners.Is this right. on 22:37 - Jul 30 with 959 views | Humpty |
| Segregated Prisoners.Is this right. on 17:26 - Jul 30 by perchrockjack |
Yes honestly, pacemaker, without question.
I ll pm you rather than post further |
You think the state should execute ten year old children? |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Segregated Prisoners.Is this right. on 07:25 - Jul 31 with 916 views | Highjack |
| Segregated Prisoners.Is this right. on 20:42 - Jul 30 by exiledclaseboy |
If you'd bothered to do that research before pontificating you could ha be saved me pushing you towards googling it. The order could (and probably would) have been made HRA or not.
Anyway, this case that was dismissed about the article in the HRA you mentioned earlier?
Back to Google for you. [Post edited 30 Jul 2015 20:44]
|
You asked me for further information regarding the legal challenge I mentioned. I provided a link. How would you suggest I find that link without Googling it? Or are you an Ask Jeeves kind of man?
You also say "The order could (and probably would) have been made HRA or not."
Well here is a direct quote from the judge in charge of all this mess Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss. I'm afraid it's another link, but you'll be glad to know I used Bing.com this time.
"I have decided that, taking into account the provisions of the European convention on human rights, the law of confidence may, in exceptional circumstances, be applied to protect individuals who are seriously at risk of injury or death if their identity or whereabouts became public knowledge and that the court has jurisdiction to grant injunctions to ensure their protection."
" In the exceptional circumstances of this case and applying English domestic law and the right to life enshrined in article 2 of the European convention, I have come to the conclusion that I am compelled to take steps in the almost unique circumstances of this case to protect their lives and well-being."
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/jan/09/bulger
The original injunction expired upon the boys turning 18, no other adult in British history has received this special treatment, but this judge makes her decision based on Article 2 of the HRA. She specifically mentions it several times as her reasoning behind the decision. Yet you say it's nothing to do with the HRA? | |
| |
| Segregated Prisoners.Is this right. on 08:47 - Jul 31 with 908 views | perchrockjack |
Hump.
Answer is no.
Got that | |
| |
| Segregated Prisoners.Is this right. on 18:51 - Jul 31 with 867 views | Flashberryjack |
| Segregated Prisoners.Is this right. on 12:24 - Jul 30 by Dull1Thomas |
The Tory government wants to abolish the HRA because it ensures it treats the people of the UK equally.
The Human Rights Act is the current legislative law to which covers the treatment of all people including prisoners. Prior to the HRA it would have been UK penal laws.
Don't believe the tosh about 'Magna Carta' as it had nothing to do with protecting 'ordinary people' only a very few barons and some with specific interests (as mentioned in the document).
Without the HRA we should all be nervous of the government of the day.
Nothing to do with bleeding heart liberalism just a healthy distrust of people who seek power and the extent they go to in order to get and keep it. |
A good law passed with good intentions........intentions to make £millions by the legal profession....Cherie Blair. |  |
| |
| Segregated Prisoners.Is this right. on 20:22 - Jul 31 with 850 views | jackonicko |
| Segregated Prisoners.Is this right. on 18:51 - Jul 31 by Flashberryjack |
A good law passed with good intentions........intentions to make £millions by the legal profession....Cherie Blair. |
I love this thread. Sums up the issue of the HRA in just two pages.
We have an opening post blaming the HRA for giving unfair treatment to a segregated prisoner, before finding out that any claim made under HRA was dismissed by the judge.
Now we have a link to the Bulger pair, who were granted anonymity under existing domestic, good old fashioned British law of confidence. But because the judge made reference to Article 2 of the ECHR, it's all the fault of the HRA. It wasn't and isn't. It was just a particularly unique set of circumstances and the judge took into account every persons inalienable right to life when making a decision under existing British law.
I've thrown the gauntlet down here before. If any person can point to a single sentence,, section or paragraph of the HRA that they disagree with, then please do so.
To date, not a single person has made it.
In passing, always very pleased to see even a passing reference to the Magna Carta in this thread, a piece of parchment that has no legal, constitutional, precedent or convention effect in this country. But we do object to a piece of legislation that guarantees fundamental aspects of our lives, like freedom, liberty, privacy and, you know, life.
So, we have a Prime Minister making an absolute idiot of himself in the past few months celebrating the existence of one and the intended demise of the other. But, inevitably, celebrating the existence of the useless one.
Without wanting to sound in any way like Richard Littlejohn, you couldn't make it up.
Brilliant. |  | | |
| Segregated Prisoners.Is this right. on 20:25 - Jul 31 with 845 views | perchrockjack |
Human rights act protects prisoners rights no matter what offence they be committed.
Do we agree so far | |
| |
| Segregated Prisoners.Is this right. on 20:27 - Jul 31 with 843 views | jackonicko |
| Segregated Prisoners.Is this right. on 20:25 - Jul 31 by perchrockjack |
Human rights act protects prisoners rights no matter what offence they be committed.
Do we agree so far |
Yes | | | |
| Segregated Prisoners.Is this right. on 20:31 - Jul 31 with 837 views | perchrockjack |
Well that s me out of this as this is the core issue for me.
It simply depends if you believe killers have the same rights as their victims.
fin | |
| |
| Segregated Prisoners.Is this right. on 20:34 - Jul 31 with 811 views | jackonicko |
| Segregated Prisoners.Is this right. on 20:31 - Jul 31 by perchrockjack |
Well that s me out of this as this is the core issue for me.
It simply depends if you believe killers have the same rights as their victims.
fin |
Wow. You gave up fast.
Do you want a link to the HRA to find the bit you disagree with? Or has it all gone a bit hard. | | | |
| Segregated Prisoners.Is this right. on 20:39 - Jul 31 with 801 views | perchrockjack |
No.
It's simply a case of a good game of rugby on, the dishes need to be washed and it's wife's nookie nights. Anyway, I can guarantee we lol disagree but you re a good poster.
Now really,miss always half time ,saints behind and I'm m getting annoyed.
Enjoy your evening and
Stay safe | |
| |
| Segregated Prisoners.Is this right. on 20:53 - Jul 31 with 795 views | exiledclaseboy |
| Segregated Prisoners.Is this right. on 07:25 - Jul 31 by Highjack |
You asked me for further information regarding the legal challenge I mentioned. I provided a link. How would you suggest I find that link without Googling it? Or are you an Ask Jeeves kind of man?
You also say "The order could (and probably would) have been made HRA or not."
Well here is a direct quote from the judge in charge of all this mess Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss. I'm afraid it's another link, but you'll be glad to know I used Bing.com this time.
"I have decided that, taking into account the provisions of the European convention on human rights, the law of confidence may, in exceptional circumstances, be applied to protect individuals who are seriously at risk of injury or death if their identity or whereabouts became public knowledge and that the court has jurisdiction to grant injunctions to ensure their protection."
" In the exceptional circumstances of this case and applying English domestic law and the right to life enshrined in article 2 of the European convention, I have come to the conclusion that I am compelled to take steps in the almost unique circumstances of this case to protect their lives and well-being."
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2001/jan/09/bulger
The original injunction expired upon the boys turning 18, no other adult in British history has received this special treatment, but this judge makes her decision based on Article 2 of the HRA. She specifically mentions it several times as her reasoning behind the decision. Yet you say it's nothing to do with the HRA? |
Yup. I guarantee that if the HRA had never existed or if it were repealed tomorrow the Bulger killers' new identity would still be protected by law. See Jackonicko's stellar post for more info. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
