You are not logged in. Please login or register.
With this been polyal's favored subject, ask me anything about Human Rights our Civil liability's I have the same qualification as Solicitor in this matter.
Yes I know I am a big head.
im all for human rights fundamentally......its all the dick heads that exploit it
for there own ends ( and get away with it ) that makes it a laughing stock
you're a lawman james you tell us ( me ) whats floored about it....cause it is
i reckon someone whos knowingly breaking the law should lose all his ( her ) claims to ' human rights '
....so if he breaks into your house and you shoot the [email protected] sh!t....whether he's running off
or not. If he wasn't there in the first place there would'nt be an issue...why should
innocent victims put up with the ' human rights ' load of toss....which always sees the victim
coming of worst
I totally agree. It is all good until people start exploiting it which seems to commonly happen these days
Yes I know I am a big head
james..........honesty will get you nowhere ♪o♪
So in response to P,Os post.
The law is interpreted in most occasions by what is called the littoral rule. This means that words and punctuation most be construed in there plain and ordinary way.
So look at the title of the human rights act.
HUMAN
A person does not stop been human even when they are committing a crime.
And just to point out it is not the average man on the street that twists these laws it is solicitors. Not to forget they charge a fortune to do this which is usually paid by the state.
It is also thanks to Adolf Hittler that there is a universal recognized Human rights act. It is there to protect people like you and me against the state.
You might want to read it. You will see that the majority of the articles are there to protect the little man.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/42/schedule/1
Whats funny is the Human rights act was introduced at the UN after the second world. Britain did not adopt it into English till 1998. Yet the British just about wrote it all. It was always accepted that the British law already had human rights and liability built in.
I know people exploit it but doing away with it would move sociaty as a whole back to the dark ages.
as far as i am concerned if somebody wants to be treated as " human" then they aught to act
and behave like civilised human beings....should hitler have been entitled to human rights
after all the atrocities he was responsible for...." human rights " would say yes ..the rest of
the planet would have strung him up by his bllx and disembowelled him
human rights should be there to protect the vunerable...not be a get out clause for every
genocidal maniac/terrorist /murderer/rapist/child abuser/thief/burglar/and all the other low life..god bless
their soles...so human rights needs applying where it is genuinely required..not just a blanket
for every psychopath to hide under.and until it gets sorted you'll have me and 99% of the population
ranting and waffling 'till it is.
"The Asylum and Immigration Tribunal ruled that sending the Bolivian man back to his homeland would breach his human rights because he was entitled to a "private and family life", and joint ownership of a pet was evidence that he was fully settled in this country.
Lawyers for the Home Secretary were aghast at the decision by James Devittie, an immigration judge, to allow the immigrant to stay in Britain. They lodged an appeal, but their case was again rejected.
The Bolivian's identity has not been disclosed and even the name of the pet cat was blanked out in official court papers to protect its privacy." ( DAILY telegraph )
BLIMEY NOW CAT,S HAVE HUMAN RIGHTS....whats going on !!! surely this is a case for ANIMAL WELFARE!!
what a bunch of nob heads
Taken your point about civilized, the Act would be entitled the civilized Human rights act if that where it intention.
Regards the cat well what can you say.
Thats the literal rule I mentioned above in full effect. Unfortunately at times layars perswade a judge to interpret the law in strange ways.
I also think that cats have rights?????????
he was entitled to a "private and family life"
yes ... in Bolivia....and take his cat ..whatever its name is with him
lol 
