of a victims human rights since the criminal ends up with more rights than the victim. For eg.. A burglar comes onto my land to break in (against the law) but cuts himself on the window he has just broken so he's allowed to sue me. What are my rights??
Eg 2.. A drunk driver runs a kid over and kills him. The kids rights have gone. Driver gets out of jail in 2 years ????
2007-09-17 08:45:06 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
To tell you the truth . its all gone mad and worst of all their is no light at the end of the tunnel.
The entire human rights thing is a farce. for the present there is nothing we can do but tell the EU to p%$ss off.
2007-09-17 09:14:59 · answer #1 · answered by IHATETHEEUSKI 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Yes victims are less thought of and worse treated than criminals... but that is rapidly changing. I was told so.
Basically mate, the law in this country is an ***. The punishment doesnt fit the crime. Criminals are treated with kid gloves, and victims can go to pot.
WE dont get time out for good behaviour...... we have to live with the actions of the criminals and no-one cares.
So WHERE are OUR human rights?
There are certain elements of humanity at the moment screaming about human rights. What about the human rights of the people hurt by the ones these 'idiots' are defending>?
THATS what Id like to know
2007-09-17 09:00:58 · answer #2 · answered by ? 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
"Who" (consumer) is thoroughly splendid, and he/she has pasted the article for you. Make no presumptions consistent with what you examine interior the clicking. the popular press has a political slant. The courts do no longer. The papers do no longer bypass into the legal reasoning at the back of any particular judgment, and in the event that they do, they generally go incorrect. for example the now infamous cat case - the choose categorically reported the reason for permitting him to stay replaced into through fact he had geared up an eternal courting right here, and replaced into no longer through fact he had a cat. the guy in undemanding terms tried to place up that procuring a puppy jointly is between the numerous factors that could desire to at the same time quantity to evidence of a suited and everlasting courting. The Human Rights Act says no longer something approximately state advantages.
2016-10-09 08:51:33 · answer #3 · answered by bhuwan 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think people need to start dishing out their own justice. the law is as bent! as the government. the whole legal system is a quango infested market place where the criminal shops around to see who's offering the best package. crime is actually the biggest and most profitable industry in Britain. the business offered to it is non stop as! is the money available for it. (((((government sponsored crime)))))) its nice to know your taxes are being used for something positive. pitty some of it cant go to the victims. but then if we locked up crims properly we would have! no victims.
2007-09-17 14:18:32 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
A victim has no rights. The Law is crazy when a burgular can sue you if they injure themselves breaking in to your property, or your dog bites them defending the property. Perhaps it's time that the victims sued the criminals.
2007-09-17 09:30:45 · answer #5 · answered by flint 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think you all ought to calm down a bit and stop reading the Daily Mail.
Let's get a few things straight.
The HRA has got nothing - I repeat NOTHING - to do with burglars cutting themselves on a piece of broken glass. This is typical Richard Littlejohn-style bullsh!t.
If that happened, the burglar could theoretically sue (he'd not get representation), although he would have no cause of action under the HRA - and he would lose anyway because there's no negligence and he is, in legal parlance the author of his own misfortune.
It has nothing to do with the sentences handed down to drunken drivers, or paedophiles, or rapists or witches.
For goodness sake people, wake up! Read the goddamn Act before spouting this nonsense.
The HRA protects the right to family life, liberty and freedom of expression (among others) from interference by the State. It's got nothing to do with the rights of people to sue you or you not to be sued.
Those in positions of authority and influence (e.g. newspapers and the police) attack the Act becasue it interferes with their right to behave as they please. And they've roped a lot of suckers in as the Greek chorus, it seems.
Like all rights, they are not absolute. They are contingent upon the rights of others (i.e there's no right to shout 'fire' in a crowded room). Black people have no greater rights than white people, gays have no more rights under the Act than straight people and so on.
The loony actions of people and authoriteis in the names of human rights or health and safety is not a reflection of the Act, it's a reflection on the petty-minded officialdom who try to blame their stupid rules on outside influences.
(Remember the Cambridgshire police said the HRA prevented them passing Huntley's previous to the school? Exposed as utter lies).
When you read about the HRA and see it being attacked - ask yourself - what is the motivation of this writer/speaker? Is it to improve MY rights and the rights of ordinary people? Or is is scaremongering for a purpose?
2007-09-18 02:32:39 · answer #6 · answered by JZD 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I know how you feel. I worked in a school as a TA and helped out in the playground. We had a meeting saying that if children were fighting we weren't allowed to stop them (ie. pull them apart) just in case we got into trouble. We were given a whistle and told to shout "stop" instead. Previous to those instructions we would get inbetween them and restrain them if a fight did kick off. This happened one day and one girl got punched and kicked (she was the innocent one) and we couldn't do a thing about it. I had to leave. PC gone totally crazy.
2007-09-17 09:08:24 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Yes,it is in breach of the victims human rights,but that doesn't seem to matter,I am fast getting sick to death of human rights and political correctness,the whole flaming worlds gone mad.
2007-09-17 08:51:04 · answer #8 · answered by Pat R 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The criminal does not have more rights than the victim, they have less. However, in America, if anything bad happens to you and in any way shape or form you can blame that on someone else; you can sue them. Welcome to America. Coffee too hot when you spilled it? You can sue. Heck, you could break into someone's house, injure yourself on purpose and make more money in the long run!
2007-09-17 08:52:00 · answer #9 · answered by Pfo 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋
What Human Rights Act? There is no such law. Criminals more often are found guiltyand lose their rights then are found wrongfully innocent and retain them.
2007-09-17 08:51:53 · answer #10 · answered by fangtaiyang 7 · 0⤊ 4⤋