Human rights

[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?

[RuthG]

No-one suggested not going to court to condemn those who need to be condemned until you did. Riff Raff was saying it is inexcusable that so much money is being spent determining whether satellite TV deprivation is against the human rights of people who are already incarcerated. If people are going to be punished, then it wont happen in the holiday camps that pass for prisons these days!

[MKG]

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.

Really, Dunc, as a long-standing member of such august organisations, you shouldn't be intentionally misinterpreting my words to suit your argument. The fact, which you accept, that human rights are legal constructs is actually of critical importance, as a lot of those constructs are based upon a system which, at one time, removed the protection of the law from its worst criminals - the definition of an outlaw. And outlaws were a free target for anyone and anything - they could be killed outright with no legal comeback. Without the law, there were no rights whatsoever and I'll say again that this was the system upon which our own is based. Since then, we have taken what I consider to be a retrograde step by outlawing outlawry.

However, that's just me. But you'll note, I hope, that without the law there was not then and is not now any such thing as a right. Defending rights per se is therefore pi**ing into the wind. Defend the law, by all means and, if necessary, apply it severely. But, at the least, apply it.

If anyone wishes to continue to defend the full, unadulterated "rights" of serious criminals, then I must defend their "right" to their own opinion - but I don't have to agree with it. Much like you, I find certain elements within our society to be despicable. We differ on what that means.

Mike

[gregorach]

Riff Raff was saying it is inexcusable that so much money is being spent determining whether satellite TV deprivation is against the human rights of people who are already incarcerated.

Which is the court case I was referring to. How would you rather these decisions be made? Who are you going to appoint to the position of absolute power, to make these decisions without going through the courts?

[gregorach]

The fact, which you accept, that human rights are legal constructs is actually of critical importance, as a lot of those constructs are based upon a system which, at one time, removed the protection of the law from its worst criminals - the definition of an outlaw. And outlaws were a free target for anyone and anything - they could be killed outright with no legal comeback. Without the law, there were no rights whatsoever and I'll say again that this was the system upon which our own is based.

Yeah, and how exactly did that work out again? Not so well, as I recall...

Since then, we have taken what I consider to be a retrograde step by outlawing outlawry.

And yet we now live in one of the safest societies the world has ever known. Certainly much safer than when bands of desperate outlaws roamed the land. I'll take that result over whatever psychological satisfaction may derive from being able to kill people with impunity, thanks.

[boboff]

Did I mention that on here someone (Gregg?) suggested trimming blackcurrants, then picking the fruit off, putting the twigs in a bucket of water and they grow roots???

Well it's true it is, and I have planted a 8 ft Blackcurrant hedge in the last hour, or it will be, hopefully.

Oh, and also those raspberries that I cut down, and made remarks about all raspberries being the same, all this summer and autumn stuff was Guff. Well it turns out I was wrong, and that these were summer ones, and will only fruit on old wood. Sorry everyone, especially MMM, who I now will listen to more intently.

So.

We all have things to learn.

We all make mistakes.

What I find most interesting is that Gregg, the "liberal" is more prone to throwing stones about "daily mail" etc, whilst Mike with a more shall we say "right wing" view, has been carefull to defend himself without resorting to anything approaching a personal comment.

I think allot of these left wing hippies are just out for a row really.

[gregorach]

What I find most interesting is that Gregg, the "liberal" is more prone to throwing stones about "daily mail" etc, whilst Mike with a more shall we say "right wing" view, has been carefull to defend himself without resorting to anything approaching a personal comment.

I think allot of these left wing hippies are just out for a row really.

I admit that when people start talking about ditching the key legal underpinnings of what I regard as a civilised society in favour of some kind of early medieval version of "The Running Man", I do get a bit upset, yes. It disturbs me greatly that apparently sane and reasonable people hold such abhorrent views - it's like popping round to visit friends, only to find them feeding live kittens through a woodchipper.

[The Riff-Raff Element]

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...

Well, what do you imagine the CPS and magistrates' courts are doing if it isn't a spot of triage?

[grahamhobbs]

.................... 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.
.

The decent law abiding people of this country owe much of their standard of living, nice houses and 'rights' to the exploitation of those millions in the 'third world'. Britain got rich on theft and exploitation, the enclosures, the rape of India and the slave trade, leading to the accumulation of capital, the industrial revolution and the exploitation of raw materials from throughout the world

Although colonialism is finished, their economies are dominated by the capital of countries like Britain. Most of these countries are a nightmare, a dog eat dog culture, theft and exploitation endemic, with no rights, except for the multi-nationals and a corrupt elite. Millions exist in abject poverty, supply cheap goods to us. Whenever these millions rise up in struggle for their rights (breaking the law in the process), they are brutally suppressed.

The 'rights' in this country have not always been there. The developing world is just like Victorian Britain. Rights were not just conjured up by the 'Law', they were fought for, people went on strike, they campaigned, and they broke the law, slowly the working class lifted itself up and established rights.

Thatcher not only destroyed our industries, she created the welfare culture (a way of silencing revolt). She started a process which over the last thirty odd years, capital has transferred industry to the 'developing' countries and reduced a sizeable section of decent working class families to an underclass that has no stake in society, no education, no property, no future, existing on ever diminishing benefits. It is these that in the main fill our prisons, not “evil” criminals. But also on the cheap goods and profits extracted from those industries abroad, the middle class has in this country at the same time greatly expanded and developed, bringing greatly improved standards of living to many in this country.

Before we look down on other people’s rights, we should think how come we are lucky to have a decent standard of living, at who's expense is it, and where did our rights come from.

[southeast-isher]

More tea vicar?

[pelmetman]

Cor I missed this lot

Regarding slopping out, when I was in the Navy and a ship went into dry dock the heads (toilets) were always closed, and large buckets were put out in there place for the crew to use, and I mean LARGE ......It was the job of the duty watch to empty these buckets every morning .......I can confirm that they were always FULL to the brim with p**s s**t and on occasion vomit and as you had to carry them up at least 2 or 3 flights of ladders you could guarantee slopping a fair bit down your trousers and on a bad day fill your boots

What a bunch of wimps today's prisoners are

As for the Dale farm lot, there are loads of caravan sites .............Oh I forgot they would have to pay for them, and wouldn't be able to deal in stolen property, or intimidate the locals

[boboff]

it's like popping round to visit friends, only to find them feeding live kittens through a woodchipper.

It's not though gregg is it?


That is a really inflamatary comment, whose only purpose is to offend.

And I can say that, and not Mike, as I am not in "it"


Your devil quote - brilliant, that one, a bit rubbish.

Anyway, nice topic, when's that old got coming back, he was always good for a row.

[pelmetman]

Bring back proper hanging I say

Dave

[gregorach]

Lovely - now breathe everyone We've had a lively discussion and a good exchange of views on this subject so could I suggest a line now be drawn in the sand please and we can all play nicely again (not that you're not playing nicely but we don't want it to turn sour now do we) Thank you.

Aye, fair enough.

[gregorach]

it's like popping round to visit friends, only to find them feeding live kittens through a woodchipper.

It's not though gregg is it?


That is a really inflamatary comment, whose only purpose is to offend.

Sorry, you misunderstand - I'm not drawing a direct analogy, I'm just trying to explain how I react to the topic emotionally. I find it very upsetting indeed. As you might have noticed...

Anyway, I shall say no more on the subject.