Tony Blair's autobiography. Options

[GMR]

I have seen and read the same thing and I don't have the same opinion.

Then we shall agree to disagree.

'Simplistic rhetoric' was in reference to your idea that one of the reasons law and order went out of control was because TB signed the 1998 act. If anything, law and order was already out of control if we are to believe the afore mentioned media outlets.

It always helps to explain ones self otherwise it is open to interpretation.

I agree totally with you when you say that Law and order was already out of control before the signing of the act. All the act did was add to the problems of this country; problems that we didn't want added to.

[Simon Kirby]

Many criminals use the 'Human Rights legislation' to give them a helping hand. As for the 'good citizen'; granted there are some who have, no doubt, benefited. But they are a very small minority. Those that are political agitators it has helped.

A recent report (in the Times last year) stated that the criminal classes have benefited more from the HRL than the ordinary citizen.

Again, can you be specific? I am aware that the Human Rights Act is vilified by the right-wing press in the terms your have regurgitated, but they have an agenda in undermining it. I asked you specifically which of the Convention Rights you have a problem with because I don't see how many of them can be in the slightest contentious and to be honest it's not obvious from your answer that you know what you're objecting to. The Article 10 and 11 rights I feel are particularly important in a free and democratic society and it's conceivable that I will at some time rely on them to avoid persecution by the state, but then I am a political agitator, though how that makes me any less a good citizen than yourself I'd be interested to hear.

[Iommi]

I agree totally with you when you say that Law and order was already out of control before the signing of the act.

That wasn't quite my opinion, but never mind.

All the act did was add to the problems of this country; problems that we didn't want added to.

"It always helps to explain ones self otherwise it is open to interpretation."

In my view, signing the 1998 act made bog all difference to law and order because we were bound by the ECHR any way.

[GMR]

I am aware that the Human Rights Act is vilified by the right-wing press in the terms your have regurgitated, but they have an agenda in undermining it.

Of course they do, unlike the left who don't have any agenda other than serve the community in a pure ans sterile manner. Everybody has an agenda.

The problem I have, and many others, is criminals using the Human Rights act to help them get out of trouble.

[GMR]

That wasn't quite my opinion, but never mind.

Well, explain yourself better man.

"It always helps to explain ones self otherwise it is open to interpretation."

In my view, signing the 1998 act made bog all difference to law and order because we were bound by the ECHR any way.

I disagree. It added to our problems.

[Simon Kirby]

Of course they do, unlike the left who don't have any agenda other than serve the community in a pure ans sterile manner. Everybody has an agenda.

The problem I have, and many others, is criminals using the Human Rights act to help them get out of trouble.

Yes, but specifically which criminals have used the HRA, and specifically which Articles do you suppose they have used?

[GMR]

Yes, but specifically which criminals have used the HRA, and specifically which Articles do you suppose they have used?

For Christ sake I don't take notes. I can only go by what I've been told (by the police), what I've read and what was reported on such programmes like Newsnight. In fact that is were we all get our information from. Are you saying you read differently?

[Simon Kirby]

For Christ sake I don't take notes. I can only go by what I've been told (by the police), what I've read and what was reported on such programmes like Newsnight. In fact that is were we all get our information from. Are you saying you read differently?

You kicked off the book review with a diatribe on the Human Rights Act, but you don't know what the Convention Rights are, you don't know who is obliged by the act to respect those rights, and you don't have an example of a criminal who has used the HRA to escape justice. I don't doubt that, were the government to repeal the Act, the decision would be warmly applauded, and I think that would set back freedom and democracy. It's not impossible that I read all that somewhere.

[Iommi]

For Christ sake I don't take notes. I can only go by what I've been told (by the police), what I've read and what was reported on such programmes like Newsnight. In fact that is were we all get our information from. Are you saying you read differently?

Given your occasional 'inability' (possibly deliberate) to interpret correctly some of my posts, including one in this thread, I have some doubt that you have understood your sources properly.

I don't doubt that, were the government to repeal the Act, the decision would be warmly applauded, and I think that would set back freedom and democracy. It's not impossible that I read all that somewhere.

I can't see it would make any difference as we are bound by the ECHR anyway (I think we'd have to 'leave Europe' to be able to abandon the HRA (even then; what about the UDHR?); a point GMR is yet to acknowledge.

I assert that organisations are sometimes misinterpreting the act, or use the HRA as a smoke-screen for other blunders. This doesn't take into account inaccurate reporting from the 'usual suspects', and others of course. All this being said, I can see that there will always be opportunities for miscreants to exploit acts like this, but I would like to think that it would be the exception to the rule and is in the minority.

I think what Blair did in 1998 was sensible, given the circumstances.

Here is a site that seems to throw some light on the subject.
http://frontline.cjsonline.gov.uk/guidance/human-rights

This being particularly interesting.
http://frontline.cjsonline.gov.uk/_include...ses-Feb2008.doc

[Simon Kirby]

Given your occasional 'inability' (possibly deliberately) to interpret correctly some of my posts, including one in this thread, I some doubt that you have understood your sources properly.


I can't see it would make any difference as we are bound by the ECHR anyway (I think we'd have to 'leave Europe' to be able to abandon the HRA (even then; what about the UDHR?); a point GMR is yet to acknowledge.

I assert that organisations misinterpreting the act, or use the HRA as a smoke-screen for other blunders. This doesn't take into account inaccurate reporting from the 'usual suspects', and others, of course.

I think what Blair did in 1998 was sensible, given the circumstances.

Here is a site that seems to throw some light on the subject.
http://frontline.cjsonline.gov.uk/guidance/human-rights

This being particularly interesting.
http://frontline.cjsonline.gov.uk/_include...ses-Feb2008.doc

Thanks for those links. The last one is particularly interesting because it's difficult to say how much of that isn't what you'd expect in a civilised society.

The HRA hasn't made it that much easier for the average Schmo to secure her rights because bringing an action in the High Court is not that much easier than bringing an action in Strasbourg. In practical terms you're stuffed unless you have the support of a special interest group. It has made an impact because of course there are some powerful special interest groups, though that is also the weakness of the HRA because it's become a byword of derision for those ideologically opposed to those groups. The HRA also hasn't done so much to allign UK legislation with the convention because the ECHR-route was always available for that.

The great benefit that I see in the HRA is that it can be used directly in the lower courts and tribunals as a defence, and it can be used in the complaints procedures of public authorities and their ombudsmen.

An example from my own experience: Newbury Town Council are very cross that I have criticised their efficiency by marching up and down outside the town hall with a placard saying

Newbury
TOWN COUNCIL
Allotments
1% Inspiration
99% Perspiration
£100k Administration

Before the HRA they could simply have evicted me from my allotment, but Article 10 guarantees my right to protest and I can argue in a possession hearing at the County Court that evicting me as punishment for making a legitimate protest would be a violation of my right to Freedom of Expression.

[Iommi]

Thanks for those links. The last one is particularly interesting because it's difficult to say how much of that isn't what you'd expect in a civilised society.

How I interpret the second link, is that it goes some-way to debunk some myths about the HRA being a villain's charter.

[Simon Kirby]

How I interpret the second link, is that it goes some-way to debunk some myths about the HRA being a villain's charter.

Exactly so.

[GMR]

Given your occasional 'inability' (possibly deliberate) to interpret correctly some of my posts, including one in this thread, I have some doubt that you have understood your sources properly.

Seeing as your only objective is to provoke, rather than debate (I'll put it down to your abrasive manner) and pass on this.

[GMR]

You kicked off the book review with a diatribe on the Human Rights Act, but you don't know what the Convention Rights are, you don't know who is obliged by the act to respect those rights, and you don't have an example of a criminal who has used the HRA to escape justice. I don't doubt that, were the government to repeal the Act, the decision would be warmly applauded, and I think that would set back freedom and democracy. It's not impossible that I read all that somewhere.

Actually I do. But you seem very pro European - thus blinkered - but my comments are not the only ones. I think you should read more widely outside of the European propaganda.

[Iommi]

Seeing as your only objective is to provoke, rather than debate (I'll put it down to your abrasive manner) and pass on this.

Chicken.

I have argued my point of view. It is you that is incapable of putting together a rational argument for your point of view. It would seem also, that I am not the only one to think so.

And as for provocative, your first reply to me in this thread was...

Yes, it was 'simplistic' but then again I was thinking of you at the time.

Come up with crap like this and you will get some.

[GMR]

Chicken.

I have argued my point of view. It is you that is incapable of putting together a rational argument for your point of view. It would seem also, that I am not the only one to think so.

If you want an intelligent conversation then try engaging. It seems you and Simon only understand debate through personal abuse. We should be debating the subject, not the person.

And as for provocative, your first reply to me in this thread was...

That reply was because of your wish to make it personal, rather than debate the subject matter; as I said above.

When people start to get personal you then know they've got nothing to offer other than trying to belittle; i.e. they've got no proper arguments.

[Iommi]

If you want an intelligent conversation then try engaging. It seems you and Simon only understand debate through personal abuse. We should be debating the subject, not the person.

I've tried that but you have no answer. I said that the 1998 act didn't help increase criminal behaviour. I said that we were already bound by the same rules under the ECHR anyway.

That reply was because of your wish to make it personal, rather than debate the subject matter; as I said above.

Where was it personal? I said your rhetoric (the undue use of exaggeration) was a little simplistic (making unrealistically simple judgements). I still stand by it; it was nothing personal.

You said: 'law and order went out of control (one of the reasons of this was him bringing in the European Human Rights legislation...)'.

I think this is demonstrably an exaggeration and over simplified.

When people start to get personal you then know they've got nothing to offer other than trying to belittle; i.e. they've got no proper arguments.

Is this why you got personal and implied I am simple?

[Sarah]

When people start to get personal you then know they've got nothing to offer other than trying to belittle; i.e. they've got no proper arguments.

I read the replies you posted when you first came online, before you had second thoughts and edited them. I think the above applies more to you than either Simon or Iommi.

[GMR]

I've tried that but you have no answer. I said that the 1998 act didn't help increase criminal behaviour. I said that we were already bound by the same rules under the ECHR anyway.

We all go by what we read. And what I've read disagrees with your comments. The 1998 act, did, according to some sources I've read, contribute to criminals using the European Human Rights act.

Where was it personal? I said your rhetoric (the undue use of exaggeration) was a little simplistic (making unrealistically simple judgements). I still stand by it; it was nothing personal.

You've now added and change it; but originally that wasn't how I read it.

You said: 'law and order went out of control (one of the reasons of this was him bringing in the European Human Rights legislation...)'.

Personally neither of us know; however, according to what I've read, and as Newsnight reported it awhile back there is a different view to this.

Is this why you got personal and implied I am simple?

I said what I said because of your comments.

[On the edge]

Thanks for those links. The last one is particularly interesting because it's difficult to say how much of that isn't what you'd expect in a civilised society.

The HRA hasn't made it that much easier for the average Schmo to secure her rights because bringing an action in the High Court is not that much easier than bringing an action in Strasbourg. In practical terms you're stuffed unless you have the support of a special interest group. It has made an impact because of course there are some powerful special interest groups, though that is also the weakness of the HRA because it's become a byword of derision for those ideologically opposed to those groups. The HRA also hasn't done so much to allign UK legislation with the convention because the ECHR-route was always available for that.

The great benefit that I see in the HRA is that it can be used directly in the lower courts and tribunals as a defence, and it can be used in the complaints procedures of public authorities and their ombudsmen.

An example from my own experience: Newbury Town Council are very cross that I have criticised their efficiency by marching up and down outside the town hall with a placard saying

Newbury
TOWN COUNCIL
Allotments
1% Inspiration
99% Perspiration
£100k Administration

Before the HRA they could simply have evicted me from my allotment, but Article 10 guarantees my right to protest and I can argue in a possession hearing at the County Court that evicting me as punishment for making a legitimate protest would be a violation of my right to Freedom of Expression.

You had freedom of speech and therefore protest under the English constitution and still have. Whilst the trend these days is to try and chip away at it, we have some fundamental freedoms enshrined in that and our common law. Ironically, something they never had on the Continent. The independence of our Courts is one of them and directly related, some many years ago, I saw a County Court Registrar dispense real justice. A neighbouring local authority were trying to evict one of their tenants under a very unfair clause in the Council's tenancy agreement. Indeed, trying to do it just before the law changed and abolished these unfair clauses. The Registrar heard both sides and gave his jdecision. The Council had every right to evict under the terms of the agreement but the tenant was being unjustly treated. So he gave judgment to the Council - to take effect one day after the law changed. That's justice.