![]() |
'avin a laugh'
Absolutely brilliant piece in the telegraph today about the Human Rights Act, kinda sums up exactly the way I feel about the way the idiots on the bench in the UK interpret what is in essence a good law twisted by the coffin chasing loophole excrement who inhabit our legal system.
The law is 'avin a laugh – but the joke is on Britain - Telegraph |
Re: 'avin a laugh'
always been the same here, by the powers that be, n were supposed to be the dummies.:rolleyes:
|
Re: 'avin a laugh'
Convicted paedophiles are to have unfettered access to their children, because not to do so would breach their human rights?
The lunatics really have taken over the asylum. :mad: |
Re: 'avin a laugh'
Not much to laugh about in that article.
However, it only needs one brave judge to ingnore the pleadings of the "human rights" defence lawyers -that would set a precedent which the others could cite and follow. |
Re: 'avin a laugh'
That nice Nick Clegg, him that came across ever so well on the television, in those pre-election debates, is being allowed to assert his liberalism, and influence government policy.
Deputy prime minister says Liberal Democrats will not let Tories water down human rights laws. Nick Clegg: I will refuse to let human rights laws be weakened | Politics | The Guardian |
Re: 'vin a laugh'
Quote:
|
Re: 'vin a laugh'
Quote:
The same year Winston Churchill was re-elected, to serve a second term as Prime Minister. No one in their right mind would deny that it was under New Labour that the 1998 Act was implemented. It just seems a great pity that Cameron says he's trying to untangle the country fron the Human Right Act, but is to be prevented from doing so by the Deputy Prime Minister, his good chum, that nice Nick Clegg. |
Re: 'vin a laugh'
Quote:
|
Re: 'avin a laugh'
Who signed us up to this is not the point, because intrinsically I believe the HRA is an excellent law. My issue is in the way our judiciary are interpreting it.
Almost all of our laws are based on the word 'reasonable', barristers argue in court cases on the interpretation of this word.. Is it reasonable to kill someone who is robbing your home... is it a 12yr old chancer because you left your door open trying to nick your PS3, or is it a 7 ft man mountain with a shotgun cutting the wires on your burglar alarm. You don't need to spend 20 years on the bench to decide this one.. you kick the seven bells out of the 12 yr old but shoot the big guy right between the eyes..reasonable, you're not guilty The idiots on our benches, swayed by armies of afternoon 'no win no fee' bloodsuckers would interpret these cases as child abuse or murder Ain't the law thats wrong...it's the interpreters |
Re: 'avin a laugh'
Whilst agreeing about the interpretors, i reckon it would be better to kick it in to touch, n introduce a "British Bill Of Rights" on the basis it would be far easier n no doubt cheaper than attempting to change what we got.
|
Re: 'avin a laugh'
Quote:
|
Re: 'avin a laugh'
Quote:
|
Re: 'avin a laugh'
Quote:
|
Re: 'avin a laugh'
Quote:
|
Re: 'avin a laugh'
Quite a few, that have taken advantage of this Act, such as the scum who killed the Blackburn school girl in a hit and run attack, I'd argue in court don't qualify as human.
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 15:55. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1
© 2003-2013 AccringtonWeb.com