Clare wrote:
I think all this "progress" on the rights of prisoners, especially dangerous ones, really makes one wonder about our own right to live within communities where we can feel safe and secure.

You have that right.

Tariffs are minimum terms to be served. Release isn't by any means automatic.

TLJ wrote:
Clare wrote:
I don't think you can legislate to cover for the "human rights" of people like that and I believe individual countries cannot allow the EU to start dictating in such a general way regarding such people.

I'd like to know how the EU is dictating how we act in relation to our prisoners......

Hi T, not sure in what way they are but I know its happening and goes along the lines of the state not having the authority to keep people locked up indefinitely. The EU says that is a breach of their human rights. It says more too. This is where all the appeals have come from regarding the "right" to a wage, even when in prison, the "right" to access to mobile phones, computers et al. It goes on and on. My understanding of being sent to prison is that one loses the right to freedom and the right to function as those outside do. That is the penalty. I think we should be challenging our MPs on this, and our MSPs since we have the advantage here in having our own Criminal Justice system, and demanding that the whole system is looked at and overhauled so that for criminals the penalties will be clear from the beginning and they cannot then demand "rights" later when they committed the crime in full knowledge of what the penalty would be.

I do accept that rehabilitation is vital but I also believe there is simply no hope for some. People like Robert Mone, (I'm sorry to go on about him but that particular event left vivid memories in my own mind) whose crimes proved how completely without conscience they were, should simply never get out.

Clare wrote:
The EU says that is a breach of their human rights. It says more too. This is where all the appeals have come from regarding the "right" to a wage, even when in prison, the "right" to access to mobile phones, computers et al. It goes on and on.


Human Rights comes under our being signatories (and, indeed, one of the original ones too) to the European Convention on Human Rights.

The ECHR comes under the jurisdiction of the Council of Europe, not the EU.

Clare wrote:
My understanding of being sent to prison is that one loses the right to freedom and the right to function as those outside do. That is the penalty.

Which is what happens.


Clare wrote:

I think we should be challenging our MPs on this, and our MSPs since we have the advantage here in having our own Criminal Justice system, and demanding that the whole system is looked at and overhauled so that for criminals the penalties will be clear from the beginning and they cannot then demand "rights" later when they committed the crime in full knowledge of what the penalty would be.

Telling convicted persons what their penalty will be seems to me to be a pretty fundamental part of a fair criminal justice system. When it comes to imprisonment, the penalty is loss of freedom; surely it is important that the period which freedom is lost (or, at least, when it will be reviewed) should be given ? If not, you have the danger of the keys being thrown away for the most minor of crimes.

And for you ? Well, that offers some modicum of protection should you ever be in the unfortunate state of being imprisoned for a crime you didn't commit.

It was folly to sign up for the whole EU human rights nonsense. A disastrous result of it, amongst many other things, is that we can't deport evil foreign criminals like Abu Hamza al-Masri because they might get maltreated in their home country! So as a result of this PC madness the rights of every decent person in our own country are being infringed by the mere presence of these maniacs, and nobody cares. Oh, and we get to keep their huge parasitic families in luxury out of our taxes too plus showering them with free health care, interpreters and social workers. No wonder they don't want to leave.
IMO all current so called human rights legislation should be repealed and replaced with laws that suit the needs of the citizens of this country. That would result in all of these criminal aliens being sent back to where they belong.

Levenax wrote:
It was folly to sign up for the whole EU human rights nonsense.

...except that it's not through our membership of the EU

TLJ wrote:
...except that it's not through our membership of the EU

Of course you're right, I should have said European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The fact that matters that affect UK citizens can be legally decided outwith our frontiers by non UK judges who are wholly unaccountable is disastrous. It's a dripping roast for hordes of lawyers who have grown rich on the thriving taxpayer funded "human rights" industry and a get out for scoundrels who should be dealt with by UK courts alone.

Levenax wrote:
TLJ wrote:
...except that it's not through our membership of the EU

Of course you're right, I should have said European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The fact that matters that affect UK citizens can be legally decided outwith our frontiers by non UK judges who are wholly unaccountable is disastrous. It's a dripping roast for hordes of lawyers who have grown rich on the thriving taxpayer funded "human rights" industry and a get out for scoundrels who should be dealt with by UK courts alone.

And which "non UK" judge determined that we couldn't deport Abu Hamza al-Masri ?

< Sutcliffe, 61, was jailed for life in 1981 for murdering 13 women and attempting to kill seven more over a five year reign of terror in the north of England, in what became one of Britain’s most notorious criminal cases. He was sentenced to 20 life sentences, and told he must serve a minimum of 30 years behind bars.

Sutcliffe has however spent the majority of his 27 years in captivity in a secure mental hospital. It emerged in 2006 that he is not one of the 35 'worst' offenders who have been told that they must spend their entire life behind bars.

Related Links
Ripper case daughter dies
Life in jail for the 35 worst . . . but not for the Ripper
Ripper 'killed many more than 13'
His London law firm Bindmans said the state has a legal obligation to set a tariff, the minimum term that life sentence prisoners must serve before becoming eligible for parole.

A statement from Bindmans said today: “This firm is instructed by Mr Coonan (previously known as Peter Sutcliffe) in respect of the setting of a minimum tariff following his conviction. >


This makes it look more worrying until you realise that the secretary of state can overturn this using the mental health act as long as he Sutcliff is deemed still to have mental health issues which are a danger to the public.

Levenax wrote:
It was folly to sign up for the whole EU human rights nonsense. A disastrous result of it, amongst many other things, is that we can't deport evil foreign criminals like Abu Hamza al-Masri because they might get maltreated in their home country! So as a result of this PC madness the rights of every decent person in our own country are being infringed by the mere presence of these maniacs, and nobody cares. Oh, and we get to keep their huge parasitic families in luxury out of our taxes too plus showering them with free health care, interpreters and social workers. No wonder they don't want to leave.
IMO all current so called human rights legislation should be repealed and replaced with laws that suit the needs of the citizens of this country. That would result in all of these criminal aliens being sent back to where they belong.



I agree but to rid ourselves of these human rights laws which seem to be added to weekly we must leave the EU.
It seems our human rights have no importance. The fact that terrorists can blow up our loved ones and endanger their safety is unimportant.
The more I hear, the more convinced I become that we should leave.
It seems their are very few financial benefits to being in the EU as we must share our contracts such as shipping. The last figures I looked at seemed to be saying that trade and grants show a deficit.

We could teach them all to knit which may keep them busy instead of trying to change for instance how long we hang our beef because ours tastes better and sells more in EU.

TLJ wrote:
And which "non UK" judge determined that we couldn't deport Abu Hamza al-Masri ?

We didn't deport him because we're stupid enough to observe the rule that even maniacs like him shouldn't be deported if there's any chance that he might get a hard time when he gets home. No doubt if we had tried he would have got his lawyers that we pay for to take it to the ECHR where, without doubt, after several months of expensive pondering, another foreigner would say we couldn't deport him, and that decision is binding on our government. So now were cosseting him in jail and paying thousands of pounds to his poisonous family every month in benefits and when he gets out we're still stuck with him. It's completely irrational to treat foreign criminals like this. They, and their sponging families should all be deported without delay.

Levenax wrote:
TLJ wrote:
And which "non UK" judge determined that we couldn't deport Abu Hamza al-Masri ?

We didn't deport him because we're stupid enough to observe the rule that even maniacs like him shouldn't be deported if there's any chance that he might get a hard time when he gets home. No doubt if we had tried he would have got his lawyers that we pay for to take it to the ECHR where, without doubt, after several months of expensive pondering, another foreigner would say we couldn't deport him, and that decision is binding on our government.

So it wasn't a non-UK judge who said we couldn't deport him as you were originally implying ? And the rest is supposition.

TLJ wrote:
Clare wrote:
I don't think you can legislate to cover for the "human rights" of people like that and I believe individual countries cannot allow the EU to start dictating in such a general way regarding such people.

I'd like to know how the EU is dictating how we act in relation to our prisoners......Interference from the EU has always to be borne in mind, especially if an appeal to them on some "manufactured" abuse of human rights.
Against such an appeal should not the violence of the long dead victims be also considered, their human rights in my view far outweigh those of the violent perpetrator.

DoricMan wrote:
TLJ wrote:
Clare wrote:
I don't think you can legislate to cover for the "human rights" of people like that and I believe individual countries cannot allow the EU to start dictating in such a general way regarding such people.

I'd like to know how the EU is dictating how we act in relation to our prisoners......Interference from the EU has always to be borne in mind, especially if an appeal to them on some "manufactured" abuse of human rights.
Against such an appeal should not the violence of the long dead victims be also considered, their human rights in my view far outweigh those of the violent perpetrator.

Once again, this is not from the EU.....


Human rights are there to protect all of us against abuse by the State. Much as it may pain some to accept, prisoners are human too, no matter how heinous their crimes but, apart from that, as I have suggested above, their application to prisoners will at least afford some small degree of protection to those who are wrongly imprisoned.

TLJ wrote:
So it wasn't a non-UK judge who said we couldn't deport him as you were originally implying ? And the rest is supposition.

I don't think I ever said that Abu Hamza had applied to or received a judgement from the ECHC. However it is an indisputable fact that it is because the UK signed up for the European Convention on Human Rights that we can't deport dangerous criminals like Abu Hamza. There is no point in trying because in every case the publicly funded human rights sharks will milk every opportunity to get paid handsome fees to keep maniacs like him in the UK. These lawyers are even more despicable than the herd they come from since they know full well that their clients are evil and dangerous. However a bulging bank balance is obviously much more comforting than a clear conscience.
It is a matter of record that Abu Hamza's large family are living on handouts from the taxpayer. Why can't they be sent back to Egypt since it's only Hamza the authorities there want to interview?

TLJ wrote:
Clare wrote:
The EU says that is a breach of their human rights. It says more too. This is where all the appeals have come from regarding the "right" to a wage, even when in prison, the "right" to access to mobile phones, computers et al. It goes on and on.


Human Rights comes under our being signatories (and, indeed, one of the original ones too) to the European Convention on Human Rights.

The ECHR comes under the jurisdiction of the Council of Europe, not the EU.

Clare wrote:
My understanding of being sent to prison is that one loses the right to freedom and the right to function as those outside do. That is the penalty.

Which is what happens.


Clare wrote:

I think we should be challenging our MPs on this, and our MSPs since we have the advantage here in having our own Criminal Justice system, and demanding that the whole system is looked at and overhauled so that for criminals the penalties will be clear from the beginning and they cannot then demand "rights" later when they committed the crime in full knowledge of what the penalty would be.

Telling convicted persons what their penalty will be seems to me to be a pretty fundamental part of a fair criminal justice system. When it comes to imprisonment, the penalty is loss of freedom; surely it is important that the period which freedom is lost (or, at least, when it will be reviewed) should be given ? If not, you have the danger of the keys being thrown away for the most minor of crimes.

And for you ? Well, that offers some modicum of protection should you ever be in the unfortunate state of being imprisoned for a crime you didn't commit.

T
I take your points made on my previous posts. I have to say however that people like Robert Mone should never be let out and that there are others who should never be let out and if society wants real justice it is time we started to demand it from our politicians in the way of clear legislation and a Criminal Justice system which truly defends society against the evil lurking within it.