[Archived] Humans Right Act 1998

[tony gale's mic]

Maybe it's only an insult when Littlejohn espouses an ".. extreme, one sided myopic view"

(I presume you mean the columnist by the way and not the revolutionary freedom fighter )

I'll skip on searching through your posts if you don't mind . I think I'd rather watch Mr Littlejohn take a sh!te than suffer than subject myself to that particular cultural delight

Well I'll leave you to continue this highbrow debate - I'm off to the pub

I'd say there's a fair amount of difference between calling someone a "gobshite" whilst making no points in said post, and saying someone's view is "myopic" and actually making some semblance of a point. Nevertheless, BSNG has since been engaging with the topic, unlike yourself, so there's no point in continuing that.

Hope to hear some more examples of your shattering ignorance soon though, it makes my day.

[leftfooter]

You're so angry! Bless.

If I repeatedly brought up my future profession in arguments, your point about me might carry a little weight. But I don't. I think I've mentioned it all of two times by my own accord on here (once in a thread which specifically asked what we did), and the rest of the times it's been brought up by others. Mostly by you.

If you want to cite times when I've "broadcast" my future profession on here repeatedly, then feel free. The search function is up and running you know! But I suspect that might be a somewhat fruitless search. In future you might want to refrain from making such baseless remarks. They'll just end up making you look (even more) stupid.

When I said "ilk" I wasn't making any inferences to your background or job, so I do find it a little bizzare that you might take that from it. I was referring to you as a group of posters/people with the same reactionary attitudes to just about anything. There's people of your sort from all sorts of backgrounds.

You referred to the Human Rights act as "the biggest load of crap" ever written. I quoted "a load of crap". Obviously that extra "a" in there made ALL the difference as to what you actually meant.

Now how's about you start debating the actual points I've made and resist from making yourself look so foolish? I'm saying this for your own good as well as the good of this thread.

Thanks.

So by definition therefore, anyone opposed to the the Human Rights Act as transposed and interpreted in English law is a reactionary?

That's what you appear to be asserting.

I have never been a member of that particular society, just competed in the national finals of one of their competitions about 7 years ago. As I've pointed out to you on the various times you've brought it up.

I would say comparing someone to an extremely well paid and popular columnist is only an insult if you deem it to be one. Personally I would if someone called me it, since my views differ from his so greatly. However, I'd imagine the large number of people who subscribe to his views wouldn't see it as an insult at all, they'd probably see it as a compliment.

Nice try phil, but you're talking nonsense again. If you can track down a post of mine where it's composed more of insults than actual solid points, then as I said before feel free. The search function is your friend. But I suspect you'll find nothing.

What is it in particular that you find so offensive in respect of his views; that they're reactionary per se or that he expresses them in a rather crass manner?

[BuckyRover]

Being opposed to the HRA because it sometimes appears to help criminals is akin to being opposed to freedom because it has some disadvantages.

I would hope that I would never have to directly use the act but I am glad it is there in case I ever do.

Fears of closer integration with the EU are misplaced. Closer integration with Europe is necessary for our long term success. (IMO)

[tony gale's mic]

So by definition therefore, anyone opposed to the the Human Rights Act as transposed and interpreted in English law is a reactionary?

That's what you appear to be asserting.

What is it in particular that you find so offensive in respect of his views; that they're reactionary per se or that he expresses them in a rather crass manner?

Nope, anyone who offers a reasoned explanation as to why they dislike the HRA isn't reactionary. I did confuse BSNG with 1864, but:

Its the biggest load of crap ever written.

In one foul swoop, this idiotic government has handed rights to criminals, immigration offenders, asylum seekers, terrorists and the like whilst at the same time taken everything away from the citizens who actually live their lives in peace and harmony.

Is utter reactionary rubbish. A more measured response as to why you disapprove of the act doesn't qualify as reactionary.

And with Littlejohn, I find every aspect of his personality utterly disgusting. He's not just reactionary, he's as racist as someone can get in a major national newspaper, is quite clearly homophobic and obsessively so, is without compassion, sensitivity or anything that makes us good human beings. Or maybe he's a wonderful bloke and he'll actually reveal at the end of his career that his columns were actually a satirical hoax. I'm not holding my breath.

There's many folk on the right who's views I disagree with who I wouldn't put in anywhere near the same bracket as Littlejohn, god knows as people they're a hell of a lot more palatable than the likes of Galloway. But Littlejohn is something else, and it saddens me that he's paid so much to write such hateful bilge.

[Rovermatt]

Littlejohn is paid a lot of money to write what people want to read. If they didn't want it he wouldn't write. That's what's most frightening. The guy probably doesn't believe half of what he comes up with while sitting on the toilet but his bank balance is infinitely better for it.

[leftfooter]

Nope, anyone who offers a reasoned explanation as to why they dislike the HRA isn't reactionary. I did confuse BSNG with 1864, but:

Is utter reactionary rubbish. A more measured response as to why you disapprove of the act doesn't qualify as reactionary.

And with Littlejohn, I find every aspect of his personality utterly disgusting. He's not just reactionary, he's as racist as someone can get in a major national newspaper, is quite clearly homophobic and obsessively so, is without compassion, sensitivity or anything that makes us good human beings. Or maybe he's a wonderful bloke and he'll actually reveal at the end of his career that his columns were actually a satirical hoax. I'm not holding my breath.

There's many folk on the right who's views I disagree with who I wouldn't put in anywhere near the same bracket as Littlejohn, god knows as people they're a hell of a lot more palatable than the likes of Galloway. But Littlejohn is something else, and it saddens me that he's paid so much to write such hateful bilge.

I don't know enough about Littlejohn to agree or disagree.

Your reaction to 1864 in disparaging him personally, by describing him as an extremist and comparing him to someone you consider to be a racist, bigot - just for criticising the HRA - seems, well, a bit reactionary.

[jim mk2]

. But Littlejohn is something else, and it saddens me that he's paid so much to write such hateful bilge.

Littlejohn merely reflects the opinions and views of the Daily Mail management and the paper's readers.

Which says alot about them sadly.

[tony gale's mic]

I don't know enough about Littlejohn to agree or disagree.

Your reaction to 1864 in disparaging him personally, by describing him as an extremist and comparing him to someone you consider to be a racist, bigot - just for criticising the HRA - seems, well, a bit reactionary.

Your logic is flawed at best.

I'd mentioned in my post it wasn't the fact he criticised the HRA but the way he did it that made me laugh. The Littlejohn comment was fair game as it was a Littlejohn-esque remark, it doesn't automatically mean he's also a racist and a bigot but it's exactly the sort of thing you'd expect Littlejohn to say on that issue.

[gillibrand]

It is always funny reading one of these threads, keep it up and tell them how it is .

[1864roverite]

TG

I am neither racist, biggoted, homophobic or littlejohnist.

I have my views.

I have seen the HRA work against good old British people on a number of occasions. I have yet to see it work in their favour.

I disagree with it totally, is there anything wrong with that ?

[leftfooter]

Being opposed to the HRA because it sometimes appears to help criminals is akin to being opposed to freedom because it has some disadvantages.

I would hope that I would never have to directly use the act but I am glad it is there in case I ever do.

Fears of closer integration with the EU are misplaced. Closer integration with Europe is necessary for our long term success. (IMO)

You were better employed acting as Paul Ince's full-time cheer-leader.

Unlike in the States, where the Constitution and Civil Rights legislation is predicated on the consent of the governed to submit to the laws made on their behalf by their governors, the ECHR is inflated by 20th century idealism but short on 21st century perspective and defintion.

The HRA has done little, if anything to prevent unprecedented restrictions on historical liberties such as the right to protest, freedom of assembly and in particular free expression. For example in a typically craven capitulation to the mob, Nu Labour is busy legislating restrictions on criticism that can be levelled at barbaric religious practices in order to ensure legal privilege for long dead desert miscreants.

So much for the HRA protecting our ancient liberties.

On the other hand we have witnessed a massive increase in the number of everyday actions of citizens that are now - or soon will be - criminalised (such as offending sensitive religious types like Abu Qatada). The insidious reach of government gropes further in to our personal data and communications whilst terror legislation intrudes further in to the lives of the ordinary citizen, whilst like hyenas our adversaries gloat (apparently Binyam Mohamed was wandering around Pakistan on a forged passport in case he was mistaken for a British resident and so might have run a higher risk of being beheaded).

Habeas corpus? - not under the HRA mate (ask Binyam).

What about government and big business, surely under the HRA they would be held to account? Well when it came to the BAE/Saudi bribes scandal, the Act was silent.

Perhaps it might help those children at Holy Cross physically threatened by thugs and bully boys simply for walking to school? Well not really - they are excluded from the Acts protection apparently. Imagine if that was to happen on mainland Britain? The likes of Slab Murphy and his provo buddies however casually use it as a shield to hide their nefarious cross-border activities.

It is truly Orwellian in it's logic isn't it? The champions of freedom have become the scapegoats for the totalitarian left and the religious boot boys.

I'd stick to the innocent Paul Ince plaudits if I were you Bucky, you might do less damage that way.

[BuckyRover]

What is your point?

Was the HRA implemented by "the man"?

You appear to be against this "man" because he is against you. But why would he be against you? Paranoia?

[Billy Castell]

I think the HRA had good intentions, but it may have been watered down, made more vague etc. so the various EU countries would sign up to it. This in turn has led to crafty lawyers using it to let their clients off with lighter sentences or whatever. It needs to be scrapped as it is ineffective.

[blue phil]

Which says alot about them sadly.

Please tell me that's a typo , jim .....