Human rights

[boboff]

Interesting debate.

A few things which interest me.

The fact the site was a Scrap Yard, and therefore not greenbelt.

The fact that the local people object not on the grounds of the planning permission per se, but the fact the community is completely lawless in nearly all respects. This includes stealing, doing jobs in such a way as no one else would get away with, intimidation, anti-social behavior, etc etc.

That they have been offered council accomodation, which breaches there wandering spirit, yet build "park homes" complete with Gardens and statues etc.

I can't get my head around the fact that a child rapist has any human rights, but as Gregg says, to deny these would indeed lead to madness.

Ironically the National Trust Advert to stop planning reforms was popping up as I read this thread. I fundamentally disagree with it being appropriate for them to do this. The proposals are to simplify the law on planning, make the council say yes rather than no as a default. If you have dealt with people in planning, then you will agree this is a good thing, as they are all complete wallies.

So overall then, it's not easy, and in our "daily mail" society these people are subject to lots of "isms" But there has to be a balance. We should have a right to a pain free existence, where if our actions are in accordance with societies rules we should be entitled to a reasonable standard of welfare free from persecution etc etc. But if we choose not to live by societies rules we should not expect a welfare blanket, just the right to live a pain free existence, and our actions should not affect others human rights. When a council planning department decides that what they want will be what they want, and without any sence of how that affects the land owners, then I say that is a pain, and indeed something which is taken from us without any chance of appeal.

So simplyfy planning, make retrospective planning harder, evict the travellers, make the prisoners walk, and piss in a pot, it's not exactly a hardship, stop blaming H&S for people wanting to make money from accidents etc, accept that development is good, it's how society improves, and stop reading the Daily Mail.

[Paul_C]

So you kick the travellers off their site and, because they are travellers, they should travel. But where to? Perhaps on to someone's else's land. This will involve more court orders and bailiffs at more public expense. So then they move on again to someone's land etc.

And so the circle continues round and round. BUT the land that those travellers are on is owned by those travellers and therefore the circle has stopped.

The only problem is that the travellers the council are trying to move own the land they are on. Planning permission was refused whereas the other half of the site is owned by travellers and they do have planning permission.

For the love of common sense and to avoid more unnecessary public expense (several £millions) why not let them stay where they are. Squatters can claim property after 12 years, they are not claiming property they simply want to enjoy their property as they have for the last 10 years.

the simple fact is they built a camp and HOMES illegaly. its not the entire camp which is cleared it is half of it which doesnt have legal permissions and have spent 10 years trying to get it sorted and because they are travelers some people think they need protecting from the big bad law machine. well they need to obey all the laws not just the ones which they can use to protect themselves.


my family have a building company and on some of the land they were planning to build on a bunch of travelers broke in, parked up and set up. they were told look stay for 6 months then go as thens when we start building on it but getitng you kicked out is to much of a pita so play fair each way ok.


they agreeed and then they decided to not play nice
the travellers decided to sink the cars etc into the ground to above the axels to prevent them leaving and were tyring to stay on what was building land untill the people were removed by private security as the cops wont do anything, and a pair of 40 ton dozers were used to drag the cars,. vans, busses and lorries onto the road where the cops promtly towed them for no tax, insuarance or MOT and stolen in afew cases. and several lorry loads of crap later the site was cleared


ultimatrly itys a case of had they obeyed the law then fine its legal cant do anything about it. BUT they did not. they iognored the law totaly and now aretrying to abuse the legal system to prevent it being rectified. and the shoutyness in support is being done by a very vocal rentamob.


#human rights legislation needs to be coupled with a human responsibilites legislation as well.

you have the right to XYZ but its not a defence agaisnt criminality of any level.

MODERATOR EDIT. Following a complaint of the use of a derogatory term for travellers, the offending word has been changed .

[The Riff-Raff Element]

The fact the site was a Scrap Yard, and therefore not greenbelt.

Well, exactly. All cities started out as greenfield sites. It's called "civilisation." We're not talking about a site of outstanding natural beauty here. We're talking about an eyesore that has been much improved by being built on.

In fact it is a fine example of brown field development.

OK. That might be stretching it.

The Dale Farm mob were denied planning permission mostly because they were seen by those applying the rules as being undesirables. Had it been an application from someone wealthy and well-connected who was hoping to throw up a couple of dozen executive homelettes perhaps the council would have acted differently.

As to the other issue, I'm struggling to see how having to pee in a bucket and then have to empty it is in any way shape or form a human rights issue. Basic human rights might include access to fresh water and wholesome food, shelter, freedom from torture and adequate clothing. Once these basic rights have been satisfied I don't quite see how someone who has so grossly transgressed the human rights of someone else can really have any expectation of anything finer during the course of their penal servitude.

[gregorach]

There is a prohibition against "inhumane and degrading punishments", and the courts have decided that slopping out fits that bill. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant - it has been decided by the courts. It's not explicitly written into the legislation, it's part of the established case law on interpretation. This is how the law works.

Given the inevitable health risks associated with 2 or more people being locked in a cell designed for one, for 23 1/2 hours a day, with only a bucket to shit in, I don't have a problem with it. Sanitation is a healthcare issue. Prison is not supposed to be about deliberately exposing people to known health risks.

[The Riff-Raff Element]

There is a prohibition against "inhumane and degrading punishments", and the courts have decided that slopping out fits that bill. Whether you like it or not is irrelevant - it has been decided by the courts. It's not explicitly written into the legislation, it's part of the established case law on interpretation. This is how the law works.

Given the inevitable health risks associated with 2 or more people being locked in a cell designed for one, for 23 1/2 hours a day, with only a bucket to shit in, I don't have a problem with it. Sanitation is a healthcare issue. Prison is not supposed to be about deliberately exposing people to known health risks.

Dunc - I can swallow the arguement about sanitation. In fact, for me, you have pointed out the nub of the issue and I cannot disagree with the notion.

What I have trouble with (and I can disagree with the courts' decision because I live in a free-ish society, for which I am profoundly grateful) is thed that idea cleaning up after oneself is a punishment. A dirty toilet can be a sanitary hazard after all: are we to expect an appeal to the courts when someone objects to having to squirt under the rim and twizzle a little brush around?

[gregorach]

It's not the "cleaning up" but that's the problem, it's the "shitting in a bucket in the corner of the room that you and your cellmates are locked in for 23 odd hours a day" bit - that's pretty clearly a very long way from what we now regard as normal behaviour. These things are always judged with respect to prevailing community standards, and the prevailing community standards re: shitting in a bucket have changed rather a lot over the last century or so. And I think most people would experience being required to shit in a bucket, in front of other people, in the room you're going to be spending all day in, as a punishment.

[MKG]

I have to return to my assertion that there are NO human rights, only protections enshrined in law. If there were such a thing as human rights, then all humans would have them - patently NOT the case. I feel that those who shout loudest about the protection of the human rights of law-breakers would be better employed shouting about the protection of millions of people around the world who can't even conceive of a human right, let alone exercise one.

Rights are a legal, not a moral, issue, and are provided under the protection of law. Anyone rejecting, misusing or transgressing that legal system cannot expect its protection after the event. This seems to me to be common sense.

Mike

[Susie]

I feel that those who shout loudest about the protection of the human rights of law-breakers would be better employed shouting about the protection of millions of people around the world who can't even conceive of a human right, let alone exercise one.

Rights are a legal, not a moral, issue, and are provided under the protection of law. Anyone rejecting, misusing or transgressing that legal system cannot expect its protection after the event. This seems to me to be common sense.

Mike

Look, even though whenever I say anything contrary to you I feel awful because it feels like I'm arguing with a lovely friendly poodle ;-), if you take away prisoners' human rights then as a society you're in all sorts of trouble and I honestly can't believe you're seriously arguing we should do that, are you? I mean, I appreciate you might grind your teeth at the cynical way rights might be exercised (although I'm entirely with gregorach re these particular examples) but that's not at all the same issue.

And re your first sentence above I believe amnesty international might see them as interconnected.

[The Riff-Raff Element]

It's not the "cleaning up" but that's the problem, it's the "shitting in a bucket in the corner of the room that you and your cellmates are locked in for 23 odd hours a day" bit - that's pretty clearly a very long way from what we now regard as normal behaviour. These things are always judged with respect to prevailing community standards, and the prevailing community standards re: shitting in a bucket have changed rather a lot over the last century or so. And I think most people would experience being required to shit in a bucket, in front of other people, in the room you're going to be spending all day in, as a punishment.

I'm not sure what it says about my personal standards that I would describe the prospect of the experience as being merely "disagreeable."

[MKG]

You're quite right, Susie - no, I don't really believe that a prisoner's human rights should be suspended. But I do feel that they should maybe be a little diluted depending upon the severity of the crime - and child rapists come pretty low on my list of people whose rights should be protected. Dunc has accused me of being selective, and he's absolutely right, but I see nothing whatsoever wrong in that.

As for Amnesty International, I wasn't particularly referring to political persecution. I find it the worst kind of hypocrisy that we allow expensive legal fights over the human rights of criminals whilst totally ignoring the "human rights" of, for instance, starvation. We even go as far as to subsidise some of the governments who turn a blind eye to starvation within their own countries.

The concept of human rights is fine - but let's apply it where it will really do some good rather than create Pythonesque situations nearer to home.

Oh - and I really AM a lovely friendly poodle. Arf Arf

Mike

[gregorach]

I have to return to my assertion that there are NO human rights, only protections enshrined in law.

I'll take "mind-numbingly obvious truisms which anybody who didn't just fall out of a tree have always understood, and yet which people still state as if they are clever and original observations which actually change anything about the debate" for $1000 please Alex....

Yes, of course human rights are legal constructs. And your point is...?

I feel that those who shout loudest about the protection of the human rights of law-breakers would be better employed shouting about the protection of millions of people around the world who can't even conceive of a human right, let alone exercise one.

Ah, good old whataboutery... AKA "You can't complain about anything as long as there is anybody suffering anywhere in the world." Perhaps your time would also be better served elsewhere? I'm sure there are more worthwhile and important things you could be doing than promulgating horribly regressive ideas on the internet.

Anyway, as a long-standing member of both Amnesty International and Liberty (aka the National Council for Civil Liberties), I have to point out that these are not exclusive options. However, human rights, like charity, begin at home. You can't export what you haven't got, and people take you a lot more seriously if you practice what you preach.

Anyone rejecting, misusing or transgressing that legal system cannot expect its protection after the event.

So you can't murder a criminal? Is that really what you're saying - once you've broken the law, that's it, all bets are off, and you're declared a wolfshead? Yeah, I can't see any problem with that idea... And who, exactly, gets to decide who loses all of their fundamental human rights? Can you imagine any possibility for the abuse of such power? The whole frickin' point is to protect people that the state would otherwise grind into dog food. The only way to achieve that is to protect everybody, with no exceptions and no get-out clauses. You do realise that these are exactly the sort of excuses used to oppress all those "millions of people around the world who can't even conceive of a human right" you were just bemoaning?

Really, is this what we've come to? Some days I just despair of humanity. If this is the best we can manage, then the sooner we destroy the ecosystem and kill ourselves off, the better. Thanks Mike, you've just officially joined the list of reasons why I'm ashamed to call myself "homo".

Thank God I don't have any children.

[gregorach]

You're quite right, Susie - no, I don't really believe that a prisoner's human rights should be suspended. But I do feel that they should maybe be a little diluted depending upon the severity of the crime - and child rapists come pretty low on my list of people whose rights should be protected.

Which is eaxclty what the courts already do. The issue is that you can't then add on additional punishments on a whim or by the vagaries of the prison system which haven't actually been mandated by a court. It's a modern concept known as "due process". Look it up.

[The Riff-Raff Element]

I have to return to my assertion that there are NO human rights, only protections enshrined in law. If there were such a thing as human rights, then all humans would have them - patently NOT the case. I feel that those who shout loudest about the protection of the human rights of law-breakers would be better employed shouting about the protection of millions of people around the world who can't even conceive of a human right, let alone exercise one.

Rights are a legal, not a moral, issue, and are provided under the protection of law. Anyone rejecting, misusing or transgressing that legal system cannot expect its protection after the event. This seems to me to be common sense.

Mike

OK - but such laws must come from a belief that humans should enjoy certain qualities of life by right or there would be no reason to enshrine protection of these.

That said, I think I've already indicated that while basic rights are those that everyone should enjoy irrespective of what they have done, certain higher rights should be conditional on an individuals willingness to observe and respect the rights of others. I accept Dunc's point that slopping out is insanitary and on that basis is something which transgresses a basic right to sanitation. I cannot share his view that it is a punishment.

Part of the rehabilitative process of imprisonment is that the experience should be a disagreeable one that people would be disinclined to repeat. What we are in danger of doing is enshrining into law the idea that protection from disagreeable experiences should be a basic human right.

Here in France a case is in progress arguing that depriving prisoners of satelite TV is infringing their human rights. Although patently of mischievous intent, the process - costing hundreds of thousands of Euros - still has to be undergone. That is rediculous, and it detracts from more cases more worthy of consideration.

[RuthG]

We are already on the road to making our culture one where disagreeable experiences are disallowed. The whole education system is based these days on 'you cant fail' and 'you can be whatever you want to be (regardless of whether or not you work for it/deserve it)'. We have countless children leaving school barely able to read yet still believing they can be doctors and scientists, then blaming the 'system' for their own failure to learn. I realise that I have said two things there that could be seen as contradictory, but what I mean is, if you encourage children to believe there is no such thing as failure, then there is even less incentive to learn anything, because it doesnt matter if they dont. The law of consequnces seems to have been overlooked.

We have also bred a generation (or two) that knows so much about its 'rights' that you have children swearing and kicking off in the street knowing that no-one can touch them - not even the police in many circumstances.

[gregorach]

Here in France a case is in progress arguing that depriving prisoners of satelite TV is infringing their human rights. Although patently of mischievous intent, the process - costing hundreds of thousands of Euros - still has to be undergone. That is rediculous, and it detracts from more cases more worthy of consideration.

Yeah, if only there were some way of determining the outcome of court cases without all that nasty trouble of going to court...

Our ancestors fought and died for these rights for a very good reason - without them, we all live entirely at the mercy of those with power. I for one do not intend to see their sacrifices wasted simply because some people find the results a bit messy. Yes, it is messy - but it still beats the alternatives.

Did I log in to the Daily Mail by mistake or something?