ChatterBank2 mins ago
Is the human rights act fit for purpose? do we need it?
7 Answers
Whilst I accept it is a good idea to have Human rights, did we really need and actual act that has now been hijacked by criminal scum egged on by money grubbing lawyers to effectively abuse the human rights of the masses? What we had before was the increasingly scarce "common sense", most of the cases now ending up as some sort of ooman right vioation where dealt with with a summary evaluation and minimal action.
I welcome your examples of ooman right lunacy!
I welcome your examples of ooman right lunacy!
Answers
1 to 7 of 7
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by R1Geezer. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Most of the cases, a massive, massive majority, you and I never get to hear about because they do their job and protect people and are not newsworthy.
Before the HRA, the UK was still bound by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which it had signed up to in 1950, so nothing whatsoever has changed with the introduction of the HRA other than speeding up the time in which cases can be seen by trying them in the UK, and significantly reducing the cost.
Before the HRA, the UK was still bound by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which it had signed up to in 1950, so nothing whatsoever has changed with the introduction of the HRA other than speeding up the time in which cases can be seen by trying them in the UK, and significantly reducing the cost.
As stated, it made it quicker and cheaper, which inevitably makes it more likely that people will use it.
To some extent it must be a vicious circle: the more the knee-jerk press publicises those who take the p***, the more people are aware it's possible to take the p***.
However, the majority of cases bandied around on this site turn out to be considerably less silly that they are reported at and people ought to stop banging their knees under the desk so often.
To some extent it must be a vicious circle: the more the knee-jerk press publicises those who take the p***, the more people are aware it's possible to take the p***.
However, the majority of cases bandied around on this site turn out to be considerably less silly that they are reported at and people ought to stop banging their knees under the desk so often.
Because the moment the phase human rights comes up some little hack at the red tops sits down and tries to get an "ooman rights lunacy story" out of it.
Human rights are there to protect the most vulnerable people in our society.
Unfortunately a lot of people think that laws that don't protect them
Sex discrimination, Race discrimination etc.
Are a waste of time.
It's the "I'm allright jack" crowd
Human rights are there to protect the most vulnerable people in our society.
Unfortunately a lot of people think that laws that don't protect them
Sex discrimination, Race discrimination etc.
Are a waste of time.
It's the "I'm allright jack" crowd
The Human Rights legislation and case law is extremely important to every single one of us. However, other posters above have correctly identified that the ones that are reported in the popular (or gutter) press are the ones where they can sensationalise it to make it sound like lunacy.
Yes there have been some cases reported that do sound ridiculous (although I'd generally rely on the Official Transcript from the court rather than the Sun). As for "criminal scum being egged on by money grubbing lawyers", unfortunately, if your client instructs you that that is what he wants to pursue, like it or not, the lawyer should pursue it on behalf of his client, even if he has advised that the case is a weak one.
Yes there have been some cases reported that do sound ridiculous (although I'd generally rely on the Official Transcript from the court rather than the Sun). As for "criminal scum being egged on by money grubbing lawyers", unfortunately, if your client instructs you that that is what he wants to pursue, like it or not, the lawyer should pursue it on behalf of his client, even if he has advised that the case is a weak one.
If anything we need stronger human rights laws after the apalling rulling that it does not cover private nursing homes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6313509.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6313509.stm
1 to 7 of 7
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.