Quizzes & Puzzles36 mins ago
Human Rights Act
We live, and have a business, next to a mobile home park, and for many years had no problems. Customers have to come to our premises.
New site owners are now letting travellers onto the site with all the problems that causes - noise, rubbish, etc.
Looking on the local council website to find out the procedure for evicting travellers we find that the council has to take into account the Human Rights Act.
Why does this act always apply to the dross of society, and never to upstanding, hardworking members of society who just want to lead a peaceful life?
New site owners are now letting travellers onto the site with all the problems that causes - noise, rubbish, etc.
Looking on the local council website to find out the procedure for evicting travellers we find that the council has to take into account the Human Rights Act.
Why does this act always apply to the dross of society, and never to upstanding, hardworking members of society who just want to lead a peaceful life?
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by willowman. 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.
But if the site owners are letting them on the site, presumably in return for rent, they are not trespassing or squatting.
This seems to be 'in the course of business' and you can certainly complain to the council about the noise and rubbish. The site owner is actively allowing it and it is different altogether from travelers 'squatting'.
This seems to be 'in the course of business' and you can certainly complain to the council about the noise and rubbish. The site owner is actively allowing it and it is different altogether from travelers 'squatting'.
Ethel is quite right � provided the owner of the caravan site complies with all the legislation he can allow whoever he pleases to live there. Apart from behaviour problems local Councils only become involved when travellers park themselves illegally on land where residential use is not permitted and, after due process, they are usually evicted.
However, travellers (supported by Legal Aid, of course) are continually challenging the right of Local Councils (citing the Human Rights Act) to evict them from such places.
I usually avoid getting involved in threads concerning matters of opinion, but this is a case where I�ll make an exception.
The ECHR was introduced after WW2 and was aimed at preventing excessive legislation being passed by over-zealous Governments. Despite there being no real problem in Britain in this direction, the Government saw fit to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into British Law (as the Human Rights Act) in 1998. Since then it has been used to support mainly criminals, illegal immigrants and other minority groups in their quests to be excused from the rigours of the laws that govern the behaviour of everybody else. These cases have led, among other things, to serving prisoners being said to have the �right� to have narcotic drugs supplied to them and to have pornographic literature made available and to aircraft hijackers being allowed to remain here..
I can understand your frustration, willowman because ironically since 1998 the (law abiding) British have probably seen more of their true rights eroded that in any other period in history.
The only way to reverse this ridiculous situation is to repeal the 1998 Act and for Britain to withdraw from the outdated and now irrelevant ECHR. Whilst we�re about it, we could consider withdrawing from the EC entirely and so reduce the likelihood similar nonsense being foisted upon us.
However, travellers (supported by Legal Aid, of course) are continually challenging the right of Local Councils (citing the Human Rights Act) to evict them from such places.
I usually avoid getting involved in threads concerning matters of opinion, but this is a case where I�ll make an exception.
The ECHR was introduced after WW2 and was aimed at preventing excessive legislation being passed by over-zealous Governments. Despite there being no real problem in Britain in this direction, the Government saw fit to incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into British Law (as the Human Rights Act) in 1998. Since then it has been used to support mainly criminals, illegal immigrants and other minority groups in their quests to be excused from the rigours of the laws that govern the behaviour of everybody else. These cases have led, among other things, to serving prisoners being said to have the �right� to have narcotic drugs supplied to them and to have pornographic literature made available and to aircraft hijackers being allowed to remain here..
I can understand your frustration, willowman because ironically since 1998 the (law abiding) British have probably seen more of their true rights eroded that in any other period in history.
The only way to reverse this ridiculous situation is to repeal the 1998 Act and for Britain to withdraw from the outdated and now irrelevant ECHR. Whilst we�re about it, we could consider withdrawing from the EC entirely and so reduce the likelihood similar nonsense being foisted upon us.
I notice that new judge sees fit to blame the incorporation into British law of the Convention of Human rights whilst slyly acknowleding further down that to effect a change we'd have to withdraw from the ECHR.
Why surely just revoking the 1998 act would be enouhg?
Nobecause as he knows that had no effect what so ever other than to save everybody the trip over to the continent and all the legal costs associated with that.
Human right legislation is there to protect everybody from the abuses of people in positions of power who sometimes have a nasty habit of forgetting who they're there to serve - governments, councils, the police and er Judges.
So no conflict of interest there then
Why surely just revoking the 1998 act would be enouhg?
Nobecause as he knows that had no effect what so ever other than to save everybody the trip over to the continent and all the legal costs associated with that.
Human right legislation is there to protect everybody from the abuses of people in positions of power who sometimes have a nasty habit of forgetting who they're there to serve - governments, councils, the police and er Judges.
So no conflict of interest there then
Thanks for your replies.
Original question was about the way the HRA is applied selectively, but.......
The real problem is with the site, which is licenced by the council for owner-occupied residential mobile homes, not for touring caravans or for rented vans.
Both of these conditions are now being broken by the new owners, in the case of the travellers with the tacit agreement of a member of the council who agreed that they could move onto the site!
The new owner, who by the way has not yet transferred the licence into his name, has stated that his intention is to move travellers, dossers and DSS onto the site to clear out the current residents so that he can redevelope it.
Would appreciate your further comments.
Original question was about the way the HRA is applied selectively, but.......
The real problem is with the site, which is licenced by the council for owner-occupied residential mobile homes, not for touring caravans or for rented vans.
Both of these conditions are now being broken by the new owners, in the case of the travellers with the tacit agreement of a member of the council who agreed that they could move onto the site!
The new owner, who by the way has not yet transferred the licence into his name, has stated that his intention is to move travellers, dossers and DSS onto the site to clear out the current residents so that he can redevelope it.
Would appreciate your further comments.
Sorry if it appeared sly, jake. I thought I�d made no bones about it � we need to do both to remedy the situation which wickerman finds so offensive.
The ECHR is an outdated convention which has no place in today�s legislation. It is far too vague and can be interpreted to mean almost anything that judges (yes � judges, who interpret it) want it to mean. Repealing the 1998 Act alone would simply increase the Legal Aid bill as litigants are forced across the Channel to pursue their �rights�.
There was never any need for the convention in Britain. It was rare for anybody to have to go to the European Court to redress any perceived injustice and even rarer for them to be successful.
Protecting the rights of all citizens is a laudable aim. Alas the current legislation does nothing of the sort. It simply affords privileges to those undeserving of them and which are not afforded to others. For example, the 1998 Act (and the ECHR) was used to allow people who had arrived in Britain with no papers (having hijacked an aircraft) to remain here. Nobody should have the right to do that but the current legislation says that they do.
As I said earlier, the irony is that the rights of British people have been eroded to a far greater degree since 1998 than they ever were before. One prime example is the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 2003. It was this act that was used to arrest a pensioner who heckled at the Labour Party conference, and the same act that was used to arrest mourners at London�s Cenotaph. Neither the ECHR nor the 1998 Act prevented that law being enacted and so blatantly abused. Neither do they prevent DNA samples and fingerprints being taken from innocent people and retained by the authorities.
These are the real rights that need protection.
Sorry to stray from your original question, willowman. I thought it was the Human Rights angle which troubled you and that�s what set
The ECHR is an outdated convention which has no place in today�s legislation. It is far too vague and can be interpreted to mean almost anything that judges (yes � judges, who interpret it) want it to mean. Repealing the 1998 Act alone would simply increase the Legal Aid bill as litigants are forced across the Channel to pursue their �rights�.
There was never any need for the convention in Britain. It was rare for anybody to have to go to the European Court to redress any perceived injustice and even rarer for them to be successful.
Protecting the rights of all citizens is a laudable aim. Alas the current legislation does nothing of the sort. It simply affords privileges to those undeserving of them and which are not afforded to others. For example, the 1998 Act (and the ECHR) was used to allow people who had arrived in Britain with no papers (having hijacked an aircraft) to remain here. Nobody should have the right to do that but the current legislation says that they do.
As I said earlier, the irony is that the rights of British people have been eroded to a far greater degree since 1998 than they ever were before. One prime example is the Prevention of Terrorism Act of 2003. It was this act that was used to arrest a pensioner who heckled at the Labour Party conference, and the same act that was used to arrest mourners at London�s Cenotaph. Neither the ECHR nor the 1998 Act prevented that law being enacted and so blatantly abused. Neither do they prevent DNA samples and fingerprints being taken from innocent people and retained by the authorities.
These are the real rights that need protection.
Sorry to stray from your original question, willowman. I thought it was the Human Rights angle which troubled you and that�s what set
I feel I need to add my own tuppence to this equation and share where the ECHR not only protects, but supports those �minority� groups whom society finds so repugnant.
In my home in The Republic of Moldova, we work exclusively with victims of child-trafficking. Those children have been kidnapped out of fields, in communities, and some cases, outright sold by family members in places such as the Ukraine, Transnistria, Russia and other countries suffering from the oppressive horrors of the past.
Invariably, those children have been tortured, raped, and subjected to the most vile and repugnant acts anyone can imagine. Some are held down �face-up� in tubs of ice water, until they gasp for air, drowning in their own silent screams. Then, they are resuscitated, raped, and should they fail to comply with the demands of their controllers, they�re drowned again, sometimes twice, sometimes three times � just to get the point across.
Continued:
In my home in The Republic of Moldova, we work exclusively with victims of child-trafficking. Those children have been kidnapped out of fields, in communities, and some cases, outright sold by family members in places such as the Ukraine, Transnistria, Russia and other countries suffering from the oppressive horrors of the past.
Invariably, those children have been tortured, raped, and subjected to the most vile and repugnant acts anyone can imagine. Some are held down �face-up� in tubs of ice water, until they gasp for air, drowning in their own silent screams. Then, they are resuscitated, raped, and should they fail to comply with the demands of their controllers, they�re drowned again, sometimes twice, sometimes three times � just to get the point across.
Continued:
Part 2
They are beaten: the soles of their feet burned with blow torches, to keep them from escaping. And in many instances, the children are threatened that if they don�t comply, their little sisters, brothers and sometimes parents will be tortured. In fact, some of the captors have already tortured their siblings and happily recorded it for their sisters to watch.
Those children are then placed in boxes � sometimes coffins, or bundled into the back of lorries or cars and transported across porous borders, over the Carpathians, into Western Romania, and then into Hungary, where they are sold to the highest bidders, which include British, Polish, German, Italian, Israeli, and Middle Eastern buyers.
To use this word in an incongruous manner, the �fortunate� ones � those who have nervous breakdowns, or have become so ill they are un-sellable, if not dispatched with a bullet to the back of the head � are left on the great highways that traverse the plains of Moldova and Romania. Sometimes they�re left at petrol stations, after having been sold one last time to a lorry driver who wants some �young kicks.� Others are found wandering along the outskirts of forests. Typically, we find that the headstrong children, the ones who have had the determination to attempt escape, can barely walk because they�ve had boiling water poured on their feet and legs, to prevent them from running away. Sadly, most of those never survive due to the combination of infection and degree of trauma.
Continued:
They are beaten: the soles of their feet burned with blow torches, to keep them from escaping. And in many instances, the children are threatened that if they don�t comply, their little sisters, brothers and sometimes parents will be tortured. In fact, some of the captors have already tortured their siblings and happily recorded it for their sisters to watch.
Those children are then placed in boxes � sometimes coffins, or bundled into the back of lorries or cars and transported across porous borders, over the Carpathians, into Western Romania, and then into Hungary, where they are sold to the highest bidders, which include British, Polish, German, Italian, Israeli, and Middle Eastern buyers.
To use this word in an incongruous manner, the �fortunate� ones � those who have nervous breakdowns, or have become so ill they are un-sellable, if not dispatched with a bullet to the back of the head � are left on the great highways that traverse the plains of Moldova and Romania. Sometimes they�re left at petrol stations, after having been sold one last time to a lorry driver who wants some �young kicks.� Others are found wandering along the outskirts of forests. Typically, we find that the headstrong children, the ones who have had the determination to attempt escape, can barely walk because they�ve had boiling water poured on their feet and legs, to prevent them from running away. Sadly, most of those never survive due to the combination of infection and degree of trauma.
Continued:
Part 3
The ones who do survive � those who don�t speak the language, have no ability to articulate where they come from due to being raised in poverty, in Ukrainian villages where their illiterate parents have never thought to teach their children such trivialities as geography � it hardly matters in their world where there is no electricity, no running water, no toilets, television or radio. What matters is that the goat is milked, the chickens are fed and the field is harvested.
Those children who come to us, frightened beyond anyone�s vocabulary, tortured beyond even anything we�ve seen on television, not only deserve the protection of laws, they deserve the recognition of humanity.
Legally, we cannot touch those children � make decisions for them � decide what will happen to their lives, if at all salvageable. By law, we must contact their parents. It�s virtually impossible. We can run all the adverts we want across Ukrainian television stations and in newspapers. But it doesn�t matter. No one in those children�s lives has television, has never read a paper � they can�t read, nor has heard a radio � they have no electricity. The child falls into a global society�s box of �not my problem, but someone should do something about it!�
Continued:
The ones who do survive � those who don�t speak the language, have no ability to articulate where they come from due to being raised in poverty, in Ukrainian villages where their illiterate parents have never thought to teach their children such trivialities as geography � it hardly matters in their world where there is no electricity, no running water, no toilets, television or radio. What matters is that the goat is milked, the chickens are fed and the field is harvested.
Those children who come to us, frightened beyond anyone�s vocabulary, tortured beyond even anything we�ve seen on television, not only deserve the protection of laws, they deserve the recognition of humanity.
Legally, we cannot touch those children � make decisions for them � decide what will happen to their lives, if at all salvageable. By law, we must contact their parents. It�s virtually impossible. We can run all the adverts we want across Ukrainian television stations and in newspapers. But it doesn�t matter. No one in those children�s lives has television, has never read a paper � they can�t read, nor has heard a radio � they have no electricity. The child falls into a global society�s box of �not my problem, but someone should do something about it!�
Continued:
Part 4
And it is to the UN we immediately turn, under the protection of UNHCR, to gain emergency refugee status for that child. And from the second we do, we can provide doctors, psychiatrists and whatever else is necessary to save the child�s life.
But it�s also the protection under UNHCR that helps us guide that child�s life. Education, language courses, (remember they don�t speak the local language) a home, and anything else that child needs.
We could act unscrupulously and simply hand the child over to anyone who calls and says they would love to be �parents.� But it is under the UNHCR that we are guided in ensuring that we provide the child with a common denominator that everyone here in Britain simply takes for granted. A home, running water, electricity, heat, freedom of expression, the ability to thrive. Those things do not come cheaply, especially in a country such as Moldova where ninety-eight percent of its inhabitants live below the poverty line.
It�s all too easy to generalise how certain laws and acts are simply inappropriate. Instead, what we need are better definitions, effective governmental management, and policy and an appropriate number of staff to manage.
Indeed, many of our rights have been eroded. This is not to blame the ECHR. It�s a result of our central government�s failure to adequately define case points and guidelines so that the laws may be applied prudently and appropriately.
I respect everyone�s opinions here. However, there are very few children who get to voice their needs. I needed to speak for a few of them.
Fr. Bill
All very sad, Father.
However, ths country cannot cure the ills of the world. It is unreasonable to expect the people here to endure the vaguaries of a most iniquitous raft of legislation which leads to their own rights being overridden, so that the rights of people elsewhere can be transferred from their own legislatures to ours.
However, ths country cannot cure the ills of the world. It is unreasonable to expect the people here to endure the vaguaries of a most iniquitous raft of legislation which leads to their own rights being overridden, so that the rights of people elsewhere can be transferred from their own legislatures to ours.
1 to 10 of 10
Latest Posts
ChatterBank44 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles51 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles57 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles76 mins ago
