Quote: sootyj @ 30th April 2015, 9:51 AM BSTJean Nidetch founder of Weight Watchers was cremated yesterday, she's happy now she's burnt her last calorie.
Thanks again sootyj. That's a couple of times you've edited my gags. I'm still learning.
I read the news today oh boy! Page 1,733
In the same vein Keith Harris cried "Get ge out of gis gox!"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-32533714
A football fan has been banned from matches for doing somersaults, for 1080 days.
Quote: AndyGWiz @ 2nd May 2015, 7:13 AM BSThttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-32533714
A football fan has been banned from matches for doing somersaults for 1080 days.
Well he must be quite fit to summersault for 1080 days.
Anti-Semite politician finds out he's Jewish.
LOL. Don't think he's that fit. His name is Pudding.
(I added a comma Chappers.)
Quote: Chappers @ 4th May 2015, 3:59 PM BSTAnti-Semite politician finds out he's Jewish.
This story has Hollywood potential. Could be another Oscar for Sean Penn.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32612176
A couple kept a Nigerian man a prisoner for 24 years. They forced him to watch '12 Years A Slave' twice.
Conservatives to scrap Human Rights Act.
On balance, a good or a bad thing?
Quote: Nogget @ 11th May 2015, 11:49 AM BSTConservatives to scrap Human Rights Act.
On balance, a good or a bad thing?
Yes, good - it is abused too often for my liking.
Quote: Nogget @ 11th May 2015, 11:49 AM BSTConservatives to scrap Human Rights Act.
On balance, a good or a bad thing?
Well, much depends on with what the Human Rights Act is replaced.
'Bill of Rights' sounds flash, but it may be just as flawed as the Human Rights Act. All the talk of 'rights and responsibilities' makes one suspicious.
Much of the problems stemmed not from the Act, but from how institutions covered their backsides. We all remember the criminal on a rooftop lobbing tiles at the police, to whom the police sent up a pizza 'because of the Human Rights Act'. It was nonsense and had everything to do with the police, and nothing to do with the Act.
First off, the HRA or BoR is supposed to be a thorn in any government's side.
It is what is supposed to give rights to those whom the powerful and privileged may want to see silenced, locked up or gone.
If the aim is simply to make an individual's rights more convenient to the government, then it will serve little purpose.
But there are certain considerations which will be telling here.
First off, what will be the position of the European Court of Human Rights be?
To all intents and purposes they have supremacy over all UK law.
Abolishing the Human Rights Act would not change this. It would not mean that Human Rights laws do not apply. It would simply mean that more such cases would be fought in Europe, rather than in UK courts.
But to leave the European Convention of Human Rights could send a disastrous signal. Hard to criticise Russia's human rights record, if you've just left the convention yourself....
Meanwhile, there is another matter. Compatibility.
Since the government introduced the Human Rights Act, all law needed to be compatible with the Act. But who decided whether it did? Yep, the government.
So they simply always declared it did, no matter how controversial the statute.
If a Bill of Rights is introduced, it will be telling to see how compatibility of new law is assured. If it's decided by government, it's pointless.
Meanwhile, whether Michael Gove is up to the job is another matter.
We all remember how he's come unstuck before.
A Bill of Rights is supposed to be a substantial document. Something which may last for centuries. I'm not sure I see Govie as an Abe Lincoln figure....
Quote: Gussie Fink Nottle @ 11th May 2015, 1:48 PM BSTWell, much depends on with what the Human Rights Act is replaced.
'Bill of Rights' sounds flash, but it may be just as flawed as the Human Rights Act. All the talk of 'rights and responsibilities' makes one suspicious.Much of the problems stemmed not from the Act, but from how institutions covered their backsides. We all remember the criminal on a rooftop lobbing tiles at the police, to whom the police sent up a pizza 'because of the Human Rights Act'. It was nonsense and had everything to do with the police, and nothing to do with the Act.
First off, the HRA or BoR is supposed to be a thorn in any government's side.
It is what is supposed to give rights to those whom the powerful and privileged may want to see silenced, locked up or gone.
If the aim is simply to make an individual's rights more convenient to the government, then it will serve little purpose.But there are certain considerations which will be telling here.
First off, what will be the position of the European Court of Human Rights be?
To all intents and purposes they have supremacy over all UK law.
Abolishing the Human Rights Act would not change this. It would not mean that Human Rights laws do not apply. It would simply mean that more such cases would be fought in Europe, rather than in UK courts.
But to leave the European Convention of Human Rights could send a disastrous signal. Hard to criticise Russia's human rights record, if you've just left the convention yourself....Meanwhile, there is another matter. Compatibility.
Since the government introduced the Human Rights Act, all law needed to be compatible with the Act. But who decided whether it did? Yep, the government.
So they simply always declared it did, no matter how controversial the statute.
If a Bill of Rights is introduced, it will be telling to see how compatibility of new law is assured. If it's decided by government, it's pointless.Meanwhile, whether Michael Gove is up to the job is another matter.
We all remember how he's come unstuck before.
A Bill of Rights is supposed to be a substantial document. Something which may last for centuries. I'm not sure I see Govie as an Abe Lincoln figure....
.....no
(or possibly yes).
Quote: A Horseradish @ 11th May 2015, 7:20 PM BST.....no
(or possibly yes).
Someone giving you a taste of your own medicine Horse?
To me, all this crap about abolishing human rights is generated by stories in the right wing press under headlines like 'Multiple rapist Can't Be Deported Because Of His Human Rights.' And 'Family Claim £400,00 in Benefits But Can't Be Deported.'
I don't know the figures but I would think that cases like this must represent under 1% of cases brought under HR legislation.
Quote: Oldrocker @ 12th May 2015, 12:55 AM BSTTo me, all this crap about abolishing human rights is generated by stories in the right wing press under headlines like 'Multiple rapist Can't Be Deported Because Of His Human Rights.' And 'Family Claim £400,00 in Benefits But Can't Be Deported.'
I don't know the figures but I would think that cases like this must represent under 1% of cases brought under HR legislation.
I agree - although I also think it's a "nice little earner" for lawyers. The one that seems to be generating massive income for them is our prisoners' voting rights. That is going on for ever.