Login
Register'random' ay?
See how the posts you make on the forum come back to haunt you. 
Subscribe | 
Back to News & Politics Human Rights - v - National Soveriegnty
Tell people about this topic: Total Posts: 68 Posts
Posted: Sat 1st Nov 2008, 11:32 pm - Posted: Sat 1st Nov 2008, 11:34 pm
vampir3uk wrote:
Yes two people who I have never met in my life deciding to pick somebody at random was deserved. Clever boy!
to be honest tho, this isn't hard facts you are giving us to show criminals are more protected. it had nothing to do with human rights? there simply wasn't enough to it to make a serious conviction.
this isn't good authority for your claim because we only have your word for it. and we don't know the full facts.
- Posted: Sat 1st Nov 2008, 11:35 pm You are wanting to waffle on about every single possibility known to man, you are being pedantic for the sake of it.**********Warning the above post may contain irony, lies or outright sarcasm**********
- Posted: Sat 1st Nov 2008, 11:36 pm
Spyro wrote:
'random' ay?
See how the posts you make on the forum come back to haunt you.
So they travelled back in time did they? Silly cunt.
**********Warning the above post may contain irony, lies or outright sarcasm********** - Posted: Sat 1st Nov 2008, 11:37 pm
vampir3uk wrote:
You are wanting to waffle on about every single possibility known to man, you are being pedantic for the sake of it.no, i'm just stating the point that nothing is as simple as some people are suggesting. if they were as simple as that, don't u think parliament would have already thought about it?
- Posted: Sat 1st Nov 2008, 11:37 pm
jokay wrote:
to be honest tho, this isn't hard facts you are giving us to show criminals are more protected. it had nothing to do with human rights? there simply wasn't enough to it to make a serious conviction.
It was recorded on CCTV which showed everything, if that isn't enough for a conviction then the people working in law are fucking retarded....oh wait.
**********Warning the above post may contain irony, lies or outright sarcasm********** - Posted: Sat 1st Nov 2008, 11:38 pm
vampir3uk wrote:
So they travelled back in time did they? Silly cunt.your REALLY touchy arn't u? you need to chill your beans a little..
- Posted: Sat 1st Nov 2008, 11:39 pm
jokay wrote:
no, i'm just stating the point that nothing is as simple as some people are suggesting. if they were as simple as that, don't u think parliament would have already thought about it?I've already said that things are not black and white, and the government is full of self serving cunts who are looking out for their own interests rather than the rest of the country.
**********Warning the above post may contain irony, lies or outright sarcasm********** - Posted: Sat 1st Nov 2008, 11:39 pm
jokay wrote:
your REALLY touchy arn't u? you need to chill your beans a little..I'm afraid this is me 24/7
**********Warning the above post may contain irony, lies or outright sarcasm********** - Posted: Sat 1st Nov 2008, 11:40 pm
vampir3uk wrote:
It was recorded on CCTV which showed everything, if that isn't enough for a conviction then the people working in law are fucking retarded....oh wait.how serious was the attack tho? and how much did it show?
alot of people don't get convicted for assault. it's just the way it is because it happens day in, day out. my best mate got chucked down some stairs by a bouncer when she was pregnant, and he only got a caution, and it was recorede on CCTV. yeh it's unfair but it had nothing to do with human rights. we're stearing off topic here..
- Posted: Sat 1st Nov 2008, 11:43 pm Off topic on the internet? I never! The incident was one of the little bastards coming up to me and swinging at me followed by the second one hitting me around the back of the head with a brick whilst I had the first little bastard on the ground holding him down. An X-ray confirmed what we all knew, I have a thick skull. However, the scale of the incident is irelevent, they commited a crime and should have been prosecuted.**********Warning the above post may contain irony, lies or outright sarcasm**********
- Posted: Mon 3rd Nov 2008, 5:21 pm
vampir3uk wrote:
Off topic on the internet? I never! The incident was one of the little bastards coming up to me and swinging at me followed by the second one hitting me around the back of the head with a brick whilst I had the first little bastard on the ground holding him down. An X-ray confirmed what we all knew, I have a thick skull. However, the scale of the incident is irelevent, they commited a crime and should have been prosecuted.I think the police failing to convict in this example is nothing more than the police failing to convict in this example. It means nothing in terms of how good the law is, human rights etc. People get convicted of assault/gbh all the time. In your case they didn't. What did the police say with regards to this incident? Usually cctv footage isn't all that clear, and if you didn't sustain any serious injuries or had anything of significance stolen, then this is on par with a pub brawl. It isn't worth the police's time and energy. In saying that, the blokes who did this to you are scum. But there are a million and one more serious crimes out there. The police can't tackle every single infringement.
- Posted: Mon 3rd Nov 2008, 5:34 pm
jokay wrote:
We haven't had a good debate on here for a while so let's try this..
Do you think it's time to surrender Britian's typical constitutional outlook on parliamentary soveriengty? Do you think we can ever retain soveriegnty yet also have an effective human rights system that gives full credit to the human rights ideology? or is there only room for one ideal being more powerful than the other? was it the convention or the human rights act that majorly effected this change?
Do you think we can have both and have them both work effectively..or if not, which one should we place more importance on? the rights of the people..or the tradition of parliament being soveriegn?
Getting back to the original Q's....
Jokay - I think the premise is false; there is no such thing as parliamentary sovereignty, so there is nothing to surrender. EU law is supreme and will be for a long, long time. What rarely gets reported in the media is how good EU law has been for the UK and how good MOST of the articles of the ECHR is in protecting individual liberty. Food standards in the UK have dramatically increased because of EU law for example and I challenge anyone to argue against any of the articles in the European Convention on Human Rights (there are plent of em!) The problem is not so much the human rights legislation but how different courts interpret the legislation differently. Now that's the problem...
- Posted: Mon 3rd Nov 2008, 5:49 pm
vampir3uk wrote:
I've already said that things are not black and white, and the government is full of self serving cunts who are looking out for their own interests rather than the rest of the country.I totally agree. They always have done IMO.
Become the animal
Embrace the other side
- Posted: Mon 3rd Nov 2008, 6:11 pm
Spyro i have an example for you
I work in a food store and we locked up one night, turned all the lights off as usual. Someone at about 2am broke into the store and tripped up on a stack off goods and broke his leg. The police wouldn't prosecute him because they said by having our lights off (after closing remember) his accident was the fault of the store and we were liable for prosecution and he got let off. So now we have to leave so many lights on in the building over night incase we get broken into... pathetic
