Words escape me on this one

[nero120]

Parliament creates statutes but you'd be very mistaken if you thought that the courts stuck rigidly to them. Tony Blair himself expressed dismay at the decision. The Judiciary isn't run by the government and in theory (and often practice) is very little affected by them.

Yes thats true, but my point is it seems pretty hypocritical for a government who brought in the human rights act to complain about the courts decision, or indeed, that it has even come to this. From Wiki:

In particular, the Act makes it unlawful for any public body to act in a way which is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights, unless the wording of an Act of Parliament means they have no other choice. It also requires UK judges take account of decisions of the Strasbourg court, and to interpret legislation, as far as possible, in a way which is compatible with the Convention. However, if it is not possible to interpret an Act of Parliament so as to make it compatible with the Convention, the judges are not allowed to override it.

During the campaign for the 2005 parliamentary elections the Conservatives under Michael Howard vowed to "overhaul or scrap" the Human Rights Act. According to him "the time had come to liberate the nation from the avalanche of political correctness, costly litigation, feeble justice, and culture of compensation running riot in Britain today and warning that the politically correct regime ushered in by Labour's enthusiastic adoption of human rights legislation has turned the age-old principle of fairness on its head".

Howard cited a number of examples of how the Human Rights Act had failed: "the schoolboy arsonist allowed back into the classroom because enforcing discipline apparently denied his right to education; the convicted rapist given £4000 compensation because his second appeal was delayed; the burglar given taxpayers' money to sue the man whose house he broke into; travellers who thumb their nose at the law allowed to stay on green belt sites they have occupied in defiance of planning laws; and a convicted serial killer allowed hard core porn in prison because of his right to information and freedom of expression".

So therefore, Labour is reaping what it has sown, and all you who voted for them dont really have any ground to stand on.

 

[Cueball]

A glimpse of the future.

So true.

 

[geeza]

another reason why i should have voted (bnp)

 

[G-MAN2004]

A glimpse of the future.

Haha, nice one.

 

[cleanbluesky]

You racist.

Some of us have no problem with jihad and honour killings...

 

[Le_Petit_Lapin]

Someone make a petition website, for UK citizens to sign to get them shipped off beck to Afganistan. I don't want them here, and this thread makes it clear that quite a lot of you don't either.

 

[Visage]

Right, and who brought in the laws that the judicial used to get them off the hook?

Well, people in the UK became able to use human rights legislation as a direct result of treaties signed by the Tory party in 1992 and 1972.

So blame the Tories.

 

[afraser2k]

Someone make a petition website, for UK citizens to sign to get them shipped off beck to Afganistan. I don't want them here, and this thread makes it clear that quite a lot of you don't either.

OcUK forums != UK population

The majority of the UK population can't be bothered doing anything about it other than complain in The Sun/Daily Mail (if at all). Then they go back to their couch to watch Eastenders.

 

[Le_Petit_Lapin]

The majority of the UK population can't be bothered doing anything about it other than complain in The Sun/Daily Mail. Then they go back to their couch to watch Eastenders.

Ships them off to Afghanistan too then.

 

[afraser2k]

Ships them off to Afghanistan too then.

Would solve the housing "crisis".

 

[Le_Petit_Lapin]

Would solve the housing "crisis".

Basically ship anyone off who has a net negative impact on the states economy over every 5 year period.

 

[Visage]

Basically ship anyone off who has a net negative impact on the states economy over every 5 year period.

Wouldnt that mean we'd end up deporting pensioners?

 

[afraser2k]

Wouldnt that mean we'd end up deporting pensioners?

Solve the pension crisis as well.

 

[Visage]

Solve the pension crisis as well.

Good Point. WINNOR!

 

[Dj_Jestar]

WTF? How the hell did the convictions get overturned

That's what can happen after an appeal..

 

[Johnny Girth]

Basically ship anyone off who has a net negative impact on the states economy over every 5 year period

Quite right. And kill all disabled people, they cost this country £billions every year. Damn cripples.

 

[cleanbluesky]

Basically ship anyone off who has a net negative impact on the states economy over every 5 year period.

If you think the problem with mass immgiration is economic you are wrong, also the 'measurement' of how each person actually costs is almost impossible due to the cost of their activities (such as NHS use, litter, council services and general population strain on shared facilities) cant be measured...

I wouldn't care if immigrants were costing us through the teeth, if we were getting value for money - but it seems sometimes that our open-door immigiration policy attracts a fair cross-section of mean spirited people with contempt for existing British culture and the propensity to cause dispruption and tension wherever they cluster in sufficient numbers

 

[TheCrow]

The who system is a joke, and this country is ******! I cant see how we can get our selfs out of this huge hole. Once we controled the world now the rest of the world controls us.

Edit: Now the rest of the world take the **** out of us + take all our money.