Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 24 2011, 08:18 PM

We've discussed it before I know, but it's cropped up again so I'd be interested to hear some more.

I think it's one of the most significant and valuable bits of legislation of the 20th century, guaranteeing a minimum standard of state morality that has taken the best part of a thousand years to achieve. It's not without it's critics either, but as hardly anyone actually understands what it says I'm curious to understand who's doing the hatchet job on it and why.

So is the HRA one of the greatest blights on English society today or one of the most significant and valuable bits of legislation of the 20th century?

Posted by: GMR May 24 2011, 08:35 PM

It is a shame then that others don't agree and want it changed.

Posted by: Richard Garvie May 24 2011, 08:49 PM

I think it's a valuable piece of legislation, but we certainly need some significant changes to certain parts of it.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 24 2011, 08:55 PM

I think it is what separates states from the moral to the draconian, although it hasn't seemingly prevented is from bombing the what-sit out of countries yet. I suppose it is work in progress.

Posted by: Richard Garvie May 24 2011, 09:00 PM

Exactly. Rather than scrap it, improve it.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 24 2011, 09:01 PM

Specifically?

Posted by: Andy Capp May 24 2011, 09:01 PM

I suppose the biggest reason people don't like it, is because the things it is meant to protect us from are assumed, while at the same time, the state is sometimes prevented form prosecuting justice that some people feel is appropriate.

Posted by: Richard Garvie May 24 2011, 09:19 PM

Agreed.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 24 2011, 09:22 PM

I agree with your assessment, but I don't think people are right on either count. The HRA has had an impact for the very reason that the basic rights it guarantees which you'd assume would be automatic in a civilised society were not previously respected by the state, and then when the HRA prevents the state from abusing those basic rights it turns out that people don't like it because actually when they engage their prejudices they're not really civilised anymore.

The HRA is a minimum standard of state morality, the problem is that Brits might not be ready to be that civilised yet.

Posted by: Jayjay May 24 2011, 09:28 PM

In principle it is good, but does need amending. Today a burglar is asking for his sentence to be void as his five children are suffering. OK, but the families he stole off suffered, where are their human rights. Dangerous fugitives have escaped prison, but they cannot be named or their pictures shown as it may deny them their human rights. Some of these have gone on to do more serious crimes before they were arrested, others are still on the run.

Posted by: Richard Garvie May 24 2011, 09:39 PM

You're right. I just think some legislation that goes through the house lacks common sense at times. Look at the super injunctions!!! (that's another thread)

As Simon says, with the HRA the basic rights it guarantees which you'd assume would be automatic in a civilised society were not previously respected by the state.

Posted by: Turin Machine May 24 2011, 09:47 PM

When someone can come to this country illegally, stay, commit the most heinous crimes then be allowed to stay because his girlfriend has given birth and it would deny him his human right to a family life, Then its wrong.

Posted by: Turin Machine May 24 2011, 09:52 PM

Indeed, like a lot of legislation dreamed up and inflicted on us, its got a kind of a kernal of sense but the way its enforced and translated it becomes a farce, and a dangerous one at that. And do we really need it here, what has it actually done apaert from drive a wedge into society , Oh and make a lot of lawyers very rich of course. I believe dear Cherie falls into that category.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 24 2011, 09:58 PM

The burgled family have a right of redress by suing for conversion and tort. The crime is also investigated by the police service and prosecuted by the state. The law is therefore compatible with the protection of the family's Article 8 right to respect for private and family life, and home.

If the burglar's imprisonment is not proportional to his crime, taking into consideration both the impact on the victim and the burglar's circumstances, then he'll have an arguable appeal. Locking up a father of five toddlers for nicking a packet of biscuits isn't really that civilised, but if his kids have all left school and he made off with a haul of antique furniture and old masters then it's pretty fair.

Do you have a reference to the dangerous fugitives who escaped prison but couldn't be named or identified for HR reasons? That certainly wasn't the case with the recent fugitive who's picture was on the TVP web site.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 24 2011, 10:00 PM

Can you give a reference to that case please.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 24 2011, 10:05 PM

Can you say specifically what is farcical? What wedge do you suggest it has driven?

One of the things the HRA does is guarantee your right to criticise the state, and that's a necessary right in a free society, and one the state isn't very happy about.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 24 2011, 10:08 PM

Specifically Richard, can you say specifically what you don't like and what you'd change.

Posted by: Richard Garvie May 24 2011, 10:14 PM

There are just the odd cases like previously mentioned where the act seems perverse. Don't get me wrong, I'm no daily mail reader, but when you see things like fare dodgers being discharged because of excuses they give in court or footballers dodging driving band because they blame their speeding on the need to go to the toilet, that's where it gets a bit silly and provide clever lawyers with loopholes. We just need a bit of common sense with these things, but I certainly see your point RE: basic standards afforded to a human etc.

Posted by: Ron May 24 2011, 10:18 PM

This was covered by the national press, tv and radio. From memory he was an Iraqi who ran down a young girl, whilst unlicensed or insured, and left her to die whilst he was an illegal immigrant awaiting deportation. When he came out of jail after a short sentence he then claimed his HR as indicated in the piece referred to.

Posted by: Turin Machine May 24 2011, 10:22 PM

Thanks Ron, thats the one, plenty more like it though! its a sort of scummers get out of jail free card.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 24 2011, 10:29 PM

Here's a link to the story: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/hitandrun-iraqi-can-stay-in-uk-2162049.html

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 24 2011, 10:30 PM

Can you cite some references so we can see whether the HRA is actually creating perverse results, because there are several possibilities here, one being that these things dodn't happen, and another that the result wasn't that perverse.

Of course another possibility is that Britain isn't ready to be civilised, at least not to people who don't "deserve" it.

Posted by: Richard Garvie May 24 2011, 10:31 PM

This is my point though, although you get the exceptional case like this, human rights legislation is there to protect us in most cases. People are right to get upset at what appears to be some mind boggling exceptions to the rule where victims rights appear to be less than offenders, but we need our MP's and legal system to right the wrongs rather than getting rid completely!!!

Posted by: Andy Capp May 24 2011, 10:45 PM

If I may quote myself. There are a couple of things I noticed about the story. Does the bloke deserve to be here? Not after what he has done, but...

He could have been deported had the original trial judge been advised that the man wasn't living at 'home'. The borders agency failed to pull their finger out and ship him when they could have done. Had they done, he might not have been here to commit the crime. The conflict in Iraq was also a factor against his return.

My view is, if you are convicted of a 'custodial crime', then the the security of the public should take precedence over your own human rights. If you visit this country, then you should be on best behaviour, and you can expect to lose that privilege if you are convicted of a crime that carries a custodial sentenced.

Posted by: Bloggo May 25 2011, 07:27 AM

Well said sir, I entirely agree.

Posted by: Jayjay May 25 2011, 08:08 AM

"The Serious Organised Crime Agency, established to tackle drug gangs, people traffickers and criminal 'Mr Bigs', wanted to publicise details of convicted criminals to make it harder for them to reoffend.
But the plan has been shelved after the agency's lawyers warned that making their names public could infringe their right to privacy, under Article Eight of Labour's Human Rights Act.
Soca's legal experts said the only exception was when the offenders' details had already been publicised by the media, because a journalist was in court when the case was heard.

This is despite the fact that courts are supposed to deliver open and transparent justice - regardless of whether the Press is present"

The burglar got 8 months. He has joint custody and says his children are suffering without him. They didn't suffer when they were without him while he was on the rob then?

Posted by: Turin Machine May 25 2011, 09:38 AM

Amy Houston died after she was left trapped under the wheels of a car driven by a failed asylum seeker.

The driver, Iraqi Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, had not previously been removed from the UK because of his human rights. The same reason was given for him not being sent home following his sentence because by then he had a British partner and two British children.

Mr Houston (Amy's father) believes the Human Rights Act should be redrafted to balance people's rights with their responsibility to obey the law.

"Everybody has human rights, that's what they're saying. So what I am saying is with those rights comes responsibility. If you are irresponsible then you deserve to lose those rights," he said.

Unfortunately its not working like that is it ?

Posted by: Turin Machine May 25 2011, 09:40 AM

How about this one

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article265536.ece

Posted by: Turin Machine May 25 2011, 09:41 AM

Then theres this

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/41466/Human-rights-ruling-to-free-hundreds-of-dangerous-prisoners

Posted by: Turin Machine May 25 2011, 09:44 AM

This is what I was talking about.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12482442

Posted by: Biker1 May 25 2011, 10:01 AM

Unfortunately you are up against powerful people and organisations such as http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/about/structure/liberty-director.php

Posted by: Bloggo May 25 2011, 10:22 AM

The Human rights laws do need to be reviewed to recognise the pain, distress and rights of the victims of crime.
I personally believe that the law should be changed to recognise that when you break the law you do so knowing that you relinguish your human rights because you actively and knowingly ignore the human rights of your intended victim or the person you harm, maim or kill because you commited a criminal act.

This is a civilised and responsible position to take and I fail to understand why those that break the laws of our country are protected. It is perverse and obscene and needs to be changed quickly.

Posted by: dannyboy May 25 2011, 10:31 AM

The HRA is the same as Tescos' recent price check promotion. Initially Tesco offered twice the difference. Problem was a small percentage of customers took the piss & Tesco were forced to change the promotion.
Human rights legislation is all fine & dandy, but people exploit well intentioned, but badly worded laws.

Posted by: Richard Garvie May 25 2011, 02:43 PM

So are we all in agreement that the legislation serves a purpose, or would you rather see it scrapped?

Posted by: Bloggo May 25 2011, 02:53 PM

Uhmm, hav'nt we all made our view clear?

Posted by: Andy Capp May 25 2011, 04:05 PM

Maybe I'd like to see some modifications. Scrapping it plays into the hands of the government and police.

Posted by: GMR May 25 2011, 04:23 PM

I agree, it needs improving.

Posted by: Jayjay May 25 2011, 04:54 PM

There is nothing with the HR bill or the way it is written. The problem lies with the way the judiciary interprets it. It used to be that judges ruled on common sense, now it seems they all want their 15 minutes of fame and see their name in the paper.

The latest is the attorney general who has warned flouters of an injunction to be in for a rude shock. What, he is going to jail 50% of the population. He, and the judges in the other examples are making the judiciary a laughing stock.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 25 2011, 06:56 PM

I think you heard you the first time!

Posted by: Strafin May 25 2011, 08:30 PM

I say scrap it. People seem to think they have all these "rights" now, right to a family, right to freedom, right to a home etc. Rubbish you have the right to exist, everything else is a bonus. I know it sounds harsh but the onus should be on individuals to create a society, not idealistsic lawyers and pressure groups.

Posted by: Biker1 May 25 2011, 08:31 PM

Once again Bloggo you took the words right out of my mouth.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 25 2011, 08:50 PM

I think you miss the point a little. I don't think anyone is owed a living, but the HRA is a contract between the individual and the state, not between individuals as such. If people are contributing to the society (say, via tax) then they could reasonably expect something in return.

We have a HRA in the hope we don't end up with a dictatorship.

Posted by: GMR May 25 2011, 09:13 PM

If it is worth saying then it is worth repeating

Posted by: NWNREADER May 25 2011, 09:27 PM

Can you cite some references for when the HRA has delivered a valuable service that was previously denied?

Posted by: Andy Capp May 25 2011, 09:30 PM

Not including what the public probably haven't heard about? Things the police or government have abandoned that we might have felt. Remember recently Brum council were told to go back and think again before down grading services to the vulnerable.

Posted by: NWNREADER May 25 2011, 10:11 PM

Councils have always bee held to account by a responsive electorate.....
Policing has been redefined by the Home Office over the past 20+ years

Posted by: Andy Capp May 25 2011, 11:30 PM

This was a HRA complaint.


Quite, but that ain't really an answer to the suggestion that we might not get see some things because they might get kicked into the long grass before they go anywhere with it.

Posted by: Strafin May 26 2011, 08:29 AM

So there are lot's of negative incidents relating to the HRA but nobody really coming up with anything good about it?

Posted by: Turin Machine May 26 2011, 08:41 AM

Correct !

Posted by: Andy Capp May 26 2011, 10:10 AM

Rape victims were entitled to be cross-examined by their assailant. Due to an appeal that this violated their human right to be protected from inhuman and degrading treatment, the law was changed.

Posted by: Turin Machine May 26 2011, 10:14 AM

Did it really , honestly require such a massive piece of legislation to do (rightly) what a simpe change to existing law and a bit of understanding for the victim would have achieved ??

Posted by: Andy Capp May 26 2011, 10:15 AM

I don't know, but the law 'forced' it to happen.

Posted by: NWNREADER May 26 2011, 10:19 AM

Suspects have always been entitled to challenge their accuser, whatever the offence. What happened was that indecency offenders got their rocks off by having the sordid details repeated in Court, going into every detail. Then in prison, a market developed in trial transcripts and statements used for appeals, where the victim was describing the offence.
Judges were always empowered to limit inappropriate lines of questioning, but they were more and more restricted by appealed decisions. Barristers were also under guidance not to accept outrageous briefs, but money talks.
As with so many things over time, weak direction from Government to the Judiciary, and strong policy on public conduct, leads to diluted law that eventually brings in some draconian measure to right a self-inflicted wrong.
There are many.....

Posted by: Jayjay May 26 2011, 11:39 AM

I think we have to decide which HR we are talking about. The European HR are vitally important - these outlaw torture, arrest and imprisonment without trial and all the nasties. They don't really affect us in the UK, but are vital tools in some countries. The UK HR simply ensures that, for instance, judges consider human rights when sentencing. The right to a family life was brought in so a person could not, for example, be sterilized against their will. What has happened is that criminals and barristers have challenged this to mean a person cannot be imprisoned for a crime and not see his children.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 26 2011, 01:07 PM

The point is, someone brought a HRA case against doing it, and it got stopped because of it.

What we need, while the act is in place, is for people to fight for their right, and perhaps be prepared to challenge the authorities with it.

"Article 2 of the HRA imposes a positive obligation on the state to protect life. When death occurs in custody or as a result of the authorities' dereliction, it imposes obligations to hold an independent inquiry into what went wrong."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/mar/02/human-rights-act

In effect, the government, or authorities, often in the cases mentioned, fail in its duty to protect its citizens by its inactions. This is usually where the failure exists.

I do agree though, the HRA is positively used by some criminals, to protect themselves from what most people would regard as appropriate justice.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 26 2011, 06:24 PM

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.dca.gov.uk/peoples-rights/human-rights/pdf/hr-handbook-public-authorities.pdf is a good place to start for an assessment of the impact of the HRA. It is however reasonably difficult to quantify the difference the act has made because there's not been such a great proliferation of casesas and it's not easy to say whether that's because public authorities have made something of an effort to make their procedures HRA-compliant, or because they were anyways. I think it's quite a bit of both.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 26 2011, 06:46 PM

I would suggest that what the courts have done is to implement as carefully as they can the intention behind the Convention, and sometimes this creates "perverse" decisions. The essential problem is not that the decision is wrong, but rather that fundamentally people don't believe in the Convention rights.

Take for example the Article 2 Right to Life. Not so obviously contentious, but it imposes on the state a duty to protect people from death, and it was this duty that prevented the state deporting the Iraqi man back to Iraq. So how does a civilised society resolve this issue? Not respect a right to life? Respect a right to life, but not for foreigners?

The one bit that I don't accept is the Article 8 right to a family life. All the other rights to my mind serve the interests of society as a whole, but I just don't see why having a family should be a right. I'd say it is this right that has created the majority of the objectionable results, for the very reason that the right does not sit well in UK culture.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 26 2011, 07:07 PM

I think you might be misrepresenting the article Simon. I think your entitlement to family life only applies if you do-not fall under the description of Article 8:2.

"Article 8: Right to Respect for Private and Family Life
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

http://www.yourrights.org.uk/index.html


Reading through the act, it seem reasonable, it also suggests that criminals do forfeit some rights, yet it seems the judiciary don't always give that aspect so much weight.

This is my point, and I think it is already in the articles, a criminals rights should be secondary to those of the innocent and the general public. I would stop short of saying a criminal loses all rights; there should perhaps be a Criminal Rights Act that is based on the HRA?

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 27 2011, 10:40 AM

I agree, and on the face of it the article doesn't appear objectionable, yet this is the article that would appear to have created the "perverse" results complained of, and Jayjay suggests that the courts have capriciously over-extended the article's intended protection so that criminals with families avoid jail.

What I think has happened here is that the courts have balanced the rights and in some limited circumstances found a prison sentence to be disproportinate. The problem is that I don't believe the right is one that the vengeful man-in-the-street holds particularly dear, and therein lies the "perversity".

More generally I don't think the man-in-the-street cares much for any of the Convention rights which only ever seem to be asserted by foreigners, or criminals, or troublemakers.

Posted by: Strafin May 28 2011, 10:01 AM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1391512/Burglar-claimed-jail-sentence-infringed-childrens-human-rights-freed.html

I know the mail likes to beef it's stories up a bit but the facts are still valid.

Posted by: Ron May 28 2011, 10:13 AM

Also in Ceefax last night

Posted by: user23 May 28 2011, 10:19 AM

Being jailed for five months for one's friends stealing some chocolate seems a tad harsh to me.

I think the judge has made the right decision here.

Posted by: Strafin May 28 2011, 11:07 AM

But it's not about whether the punishment was too harsh.

Posted by: Strafin May 28 2011, 11:11 AM

"He and three other men raided Mansfield Rugby Club, taking only some chocolate, before he and one of his accomplices drove off in a van.
Bishop clipped a police vehicle and drove through red lights before he drove up a dead-end street and was arrested."

So not just taking some chocolate then.

Posted by: On the edge May 28 2011, 05:11 PM

This was a serial offender who was no stranger to the Courts. Whatever the result - his subsequent comments suggest he has a contempt for our justice system. Failing to punish that brings the system into furtjher contempt. All about respect - not for the 'me' rather the 'we'.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 28 2011, 05:29 PM

I didn't see where it said that. He suggested it was his first offence, was that not so? 8 months (4 for burglary, 4 for dangerous driving, conecutive it would appear) does seem rather strong for a first offence where it wasn't on domestic premeses, there was no violence, and he pleaded guilty.

Posted by: user23 May 28 2011, 05:44 PM

Really? Where does it say that?

Posted by: On the edge May 28 2011, 06:10 PM

In a paper of record.

Posted by: user23 May 28 2011, 06:26 PM

I'm sure they would have included it in the article if it were true.

To me his subsequent comments show he was lucky yo get off and is grateful for it.

I don't like some people's readiness to send the children he looks after into care because their father was daft and stole some chocolate.

Posted by: On the edge May 28 2011, 07:09 PM

I am still pretty certain British justice, even today, would not gaol an offender simply for stealing chocolate. We don't do that. Our justice system also calls for social reports on any offender facing a prision sentence - where family circumstaces are considered and are a major factor. We are also moving away from the previous idea that children are always better off with their parents. Of course, one could also expect the offender to have some regard for his dependents if not at the commissioning of the offence - certainly at the trial. However, it may be that in this case, the Judge felt that a short and sharp reminder of what could happen would wake this individual to his family if not his community responsibilities. I'm probably expecting far too much but it would be useful if the media checked this out in say 2 years time.

Posted by: Ron May 28 2011, 07:32 PM

So who was looking after the kids while he was carrying out the theft?

Posted by: Andy Capp May 28 2011, 09:01 PM

Yes...the judges felt the interests of the children were best served by giving them back their criminal father early. A father who willingly indulged in activities that might result in him being removed from responsibility for their care. I suggest not the best role model. It's not like he was stealing shoes for them, or anything. Not that it would have made it right of course.

Posted by: Strafin May 29 2011, 12:24 AM

I am guessing he only stole chocolate as that all he could get away with, if there had been money lying around I am sure he would have taken it. Also he drove into a police car. And evaded arrest only stopping once he had driven into a dead end.

Posted by: On the edge May 29 2011, 08:32 AM

Tend to agree. However, its a 'rock and a hard place' situation. We pay to take the kids into care or we try scare him into good behaviour and let him try again. The secret is in the follow through. What will he be doing in 18 to 24 months? Before you answer, the cynic in me suggests we already know the answer. Clearly, we need some demonstrably obvious punishment - that can be imposed whilst offenders are notionally at liberty. That isn't 'community service' as we know it!

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 29 2011, 10:33 AM

You still reading the NME?

Posted by: user23 May 29 2011, 10:41 AM

Hang on, you were very certain he was "no stranger to the courts" earlier, now you're just "pretty certain"?

I'm pretty certain the Daily Mail would have mentioned it if he was a repeat offender, however I'm willing to be proved wrong if you could post a link to the source of your information.

Posted by: On the edge May 29 2011, 11:18 AM

Playing with words - this is an informal forum - not a Court of law! Daily Mail certainly mentioned it - Saturday edition. The usual court reports are open to all.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 29 2011, 11:35 AM

Don't forget, this guy would have been in clink pending his appeal, and he might well have spent time on remand too. Given that he was arrested in September last year and he'd be elligable for parole after four months served I'd be very surprised if he had many days left to serve anyways. I'm sure that will have been factored into the decision to suspend the remainder of his sentence.

What does seem odd though is that he doesn't appear to have been given a community sentence instead. I'm sure he could have made some satisfactory arrangements for childcare while he did a few hundred hours of Community Payback.

I guess the interesting thing to note from the tone of the postings here is that when it comes to balancing society's need to punish perps against a child's need for parental care the court's weighting of the competing factors is not obviously the same as society's. That might sound like a good reason to support the HRA, but I think it's putting the cart before the horse. Time was when the church might have spoken with some moral authority on crime and punishment, and the needs of children, and in fairness the non-conformists have done much to shape British social morality, but the Christian church has precious little standing anymore and largely can't be asked. I'm not comfortable with the Hate Mail filling that vacuum.

Posted by: Jayjay May 29 2011, 12:59 PM

The newspapers did mention it. [Quote] ... received his first conviction 12 years ago ... he has now racked up a total of nine convictions ... been jailed on three previous occasions.

He has joint custody with the mother and a family member was caring for the children.

Posted by: Strafin May 29 2011, 01:00 PM

I think the article makes it pretty clear that this was a first offence.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 29 2011, 01:08 PM

*D'oh!*

Posted by: Andy Capp May 29 2011, 02:09 PM

I think what some of us are thinking is, how valuable is this person as a parent? Also, this well publicised story sets, to a certain extent, a precedence. Commute your villainy by having kids, which, if you are that way inclined, is possibly not the best thing for society.


The new church is telly. I don't think many people chose crime because they are too lazy to do a days job. There is a deeper reason than that; one of which is that I suspect there is little work that pays enough for people of below average intelligence to enjoy the life they wish to have. Not that a lack of intelligence is necessarily the main reason for a propensity to criminal activity.

Posted by: user23 May 29 2011, 04:47 PM

Why does it say "It was a one-off" then?

Reading the end of the article, it says didn't even enter the premises, just drove the vehicle.

Posted by: Strafin May 29 2011, 05:04 PM

I can't find anywhere (online at least) that says he has been convicted before. I think he should still have done his time, he's still a thieving coward after all.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 29 2011, 05:31 PM

I wonder if it's possible to contrast the Bishops' situation with something more familiar: Does anyone know how one-parent service families cope when the parent is posted on active service?

I would also be interested in seeing if Liberty would support a test-case claim for damamges by an imprisoned parent's children against the parent for a violation of their Article 8 right to a family life.

Posted by: On the edge May 29 2011, 05:59 PM

Have a look at the local paper for Nottingham - nice chap.

Posted by: Strafin May 29 2011, 06:15 PM

http://www.thisisnottingham.co.uk/news/Dad-threatened-head-teacher/article-477109-detail/article.html

Why don't you just post the link?

Posted by: Jayjay May 29 2011, 09:45 PM

I really didn't make it up. I quoted direct from the page of Mail on Saturday.

Posted by: On the edge May 29 2011, 09:59 PM

Why should I? Quite easy to do a search - with the added advantage that it might also take you to other sites. I'm all for broadening people's understanding!

Posted by: Strafin May 30 2011, 08:57 AM

Because if we were having the conversation in person you wouldn't refuse to back up what you are saying. If you are making a post on internet forum you should cite your source.

Posted by: Strafin May 30 2011, 08:57 AM

It's not a big deal but I don't see why you wouldn't.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 30 2011, 09:13 AM

The opposite is also true. If I only have a casual interest, I'd follow a link (and then perhaps other link throughs), but if there's no link, then I'd probably not bother at all.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 30 2011, 10:28 AM

For sure, he's a theiving scrote, that's not in dispute.

The point is that his children are victims here and have done nothing to deserve the loss of their father. Isn't it right to balance the perp's punishment with the rights of the victims? Isn't this exactly what the red-tops demand?

First burglary offence, took nothing of value, pleaded guilty, previous for losing his rag. If he'd been given a couple of hundred hours community service and locked up at the weekends for a year that wouldn't have been too lenient would it?

Posted by: Andy Capp May 30 2011, 10:53 AM

That is true, although it is also important that people don't think that by having kids, they can get their 'punishment' commuted.

I have always felt that gaol is a blunt instrument with which to administer punishment, but until we have a better solution, we are perhaps stuck with it. Especially in a world where people are becoming ever more likely to be made redundant; in an environment where relative poverty excludes you from enjoying brand-new shopping malls, houses, holidays and things; with a population who sit back and sneer at people with such misfortune.

Posted by: On the edge May 30 2011, 11:28 AM

Quite agree. I have a hang up about providing links. The web isn't the source of all knowledge and isn't always right. Equally, I'd terminate a casual conversation if someone started to ask for sources to be provided - says something!

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 30 2011, 12:34 PM

To all of that I couldn't agree more.

Posted by: NWNREADER May 30 2011, 12:42 PM

Often the grandparents step in, or other members of the extended family.

Posted by: Strafin May 30 2011, 01:40 PM

I think we can all agree, that by comparison to other sentences, it seems that this one was a bit harsh. The point is though, should the HRA be used to get convicted criminals out of jail? That is a very dangerous precedent in my opinion. If they had raised the HRA at trial would that have caused as much of a reaction?

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 30 2011, 03:55 PM

Can I put it another way: Should a perp's sentence be balanced against the victims' rights, or should the state deny the victims their rights.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 30 2011, 03:58 PM

Define victim?

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 30 2011, 04:00 PM

Someone disadvantaged by the perp's actions.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 30 2011, 04:08 PM

Has that not happened before the successful appeal? We are talking about a matter of months.

Posted by: Jayjay May 30 2011, 04:56 PM

The mother had joint custody, so she could have cared them and they were in the care of an aunt. He has been in court nine times and sent down three. These are when he got caught/enough evidence for CPS to prosecute. Most criminals get away many times before they are caught, so the likelihood is he has done many more crimes. He is a habitual criminal.

Of course he pleaded guilty, he was banged to rights. Also, now if you plead guilty the sentence is reduced.

Maybe if he had got a tougher sentence when he first commited crime, either in jail or the year long weekend community service you are suggesting, he would not have gone on to do further crime. Just wonder if it is your house he burgles next or you he knocks over in his uninsured car while driving dangerously will you be so forgiving?

Posted by: Andy Capp May 30 2011, 05:07 PM

I'm not sure Simon Kirby is arguing for being more forgiving, but more that this is a bigger issue than one of a criminal and a victim.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 30 2011, 07:56 PM

Sorry, I don't understand your point.

I'm defining a victim as someone who is hurt by the perp's actions. If the perp goes to jail then his children are innocent victims of his criminal activity because children need parents.

Posted by: Andy Capp May 30 2011, 08:11 PM

What I'm mean is: I assume that you feel the children (constituents of victims) have been unfairly treated by the original sentence? For my part: I am sceptical that they have unduly suffered. I'm also not convinced that natural fathers are always the best guardians to raise children, but that is subjective and a difficult thing to legislate for.

When a crime is committed, I think we are all victims to some degree, however; it is up to us to maintain a zero tolerance to the black market, otherwise; we are partly responsible for these crimes.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 30 2011, 08:37 PM

The court had to balanced the need to punish the father against the needs of his chidren for their parent. We don't know the details but the court decided tha, taking all that into consideration, a custodial sentence was not proportionate.


Previous is taken into account when sentencing, but it's become something of a tradition in England to ask for more that just a likelihood that they'd have done stuff before convicting them.


Read what I wrote. I'm suggesting that he can do a couple of hundred hours of cummunity service and be locked up at weekends. That would appear to protect his children's rights such as they are, and serve the needs of justice. As Andy Capp said, I'm not arguing for forgivness, I'm arguing that it is right to weigh the legitimate need to punish the perp against the needs of his children for their father. The trial judge didn't do that as Article 8 requires her to do, and the Court of Appeal, once it had balanced all of the competing factors, found that a suspended sentence was in the circumstances proportional.

Posted by: Simon Kirby May 30 2011, 09:14 PM

Yes. I haven't read the judgment yet but it would appear that the court found that in the circumstances the children's family life was disproportianately harmed if they were deprived of their father. I'm guessing that the court would have looked at the family life the father was providing as against the family life the children would have with him inside. It's depressingly true that some children would be much better off if their fathers were locked up, but all things being equal it's pretty fair to start from the assumption that children are best with their parents.


Very true. It's a fundamental truth that justice must not just be done, but be seen to be done, because justice underpins a civilised society, and if we lose faith in justice society begins to fail. This judgment is a challenge to that because it balances the fundamental lust for vengence against a much more abstract right of children for their parents. I'd be surprised if we've heard the last of it.

Good point about the black market BTW.

Posted by: Jayjay May 31 2011, 05:27 AM

[quote name='Simon Kirby' date='May 30 2011, 09:37 PM' post='41744']
The court had to balanced the need to punish the father against the needs of his chidren for their parent. We don't know the details but the court decided tha, taking all that into consideration, a custodial sentence was not proportionate.


Taking into account the victims of his crime and the children in this case, at which point do you think this man should be jailed? On his next offence? The one after? When he kills some one through his repeated dangerous driving and driving without insurance?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 1 2011, 07:20 PM

Who can say what the circumstances would be if the man offends again, but that's not quite the issue is it. Are you saying that he'll be more likely to offend in the future because of the lenient sentence this time round? We've discussed this old chestnut before, and there's little objective evidence to support it.

But essentially what you're saying is that the court shouldn't consider the children's right to a family life in sentencing their father, no?

Posted by: Strafin Jun 1 2011, 07:44 PM

I don't think they should. It would seem that this man has been in jail, more than once before, according to newspaper articles I have read, the Daily Mail being the main one. I think if this is the case then the kids are probably better off without him anyway.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 1 2011, 08:21 PM

We have no evidence to suggest he's anything other than a loving father, so why should the children be punished for the father's dishonesty?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 1 2011, 10:03 PM

You on the other hand are assuming that the children are being punished by their father's incarceration.

Posted by: Strafin Jun 2 2011, 06:46 AM

He could be an international super criminal and still be a loving father.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 2 2011, 06:39 PM

Quite so. Children have a right to a family life, even the children of international super criminals. Of course the need to imprison convicted international super criminals trumps that right so a custodial sentence would then be proportionate.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 2 2011, 07:00 PM

Yes, I'd be surprised if there was much disagreement that a child's family life is harmed by the loss of a parent, but specifically I believe that is still true when the parent is lost to imprisonment, and I reject the idea that the family life of a criminal's child will necessarily already be so diminished by the circumstances of the parent's criminality as to be not worth preserving. It's the parent's love that a child needs and it's right to respect that in a civilised society, and I see no reason to suppose that crims are any less loving than anyone else.

Posted by: Jayjay Jun 2 2011, 07:49 PM

The man was going down for 4 months, even if he served his full term this is not long. Our armed forces are away from their children for much longer. Children in boarding schools are away from their parents for longer. Are you saying these children's HR are not being considered. Should we close boarding schools and only send childless personal abroad?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 2 2011, 08:40 PM

His sentence was 8 months, and 8 months is a lifetime when you're five.


I thought about that, and there is a comparable issue for the children of personnel on active service. It's possible that it's not an issue that's ever been before the courts, I don't know, but my guess is that the loss of the parent is proportianate in the circumstances - Article 8 is not an absolute right remember, it's always a question of balance.


Simple answer is that it's not a HR issue because it's not the state that's sending the child away, it's the parent. It does however raise an interesting question of whether the state should legislate about the suitability of boarding schools (if it hasn't already, I don't know).

Will you address the issue now: Are you saying that children don't need their parents, or just that we shouldn't care about what children need when sentencing the parents.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 2 2011, 09:25 PM

Is there perhaps a case for making the parents recognise the consequence of their actions when they commit crime - especially pre-planned etc - will be disruption of family norms. If someone is so concerned their children will suffer if they get sent to prison surely that is a reason not to commit the crime?
Or am I missing the point?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 2 2011, 10:53 PM

The sentencing decision is the state's, and the Act obliges the state to respect the children's rights, so if those rights are infringed as a consequence of the sentence then the state must chose a sentence that balances the need to punish the perp with the children's rights.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 3 2011, 01:03 AM

Why is 8 months gaol unreasonable considering the perps previous and the children's rights?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 3 2011, 05:59 PM

8 months was a fair sentence taking everything into account except for the rights of the children. The appeal was successful because the trial judge erred in law by not taking the children's rights into account, and the appeal judge concluded that once the children's rights were also taken into account then a suspended sentence was appropriate.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 3 2011, 09:47 PM

Please explain why? It sounds like one opinion against another. Perhaps the original judge did take that into account but didn't note it?

At the end of the day yours, mine, the judges', and everyone else's view of the sentence is subjective. If the perp was sentenced to two years and it was commuted to eight months, you'd more than likely say that was fine.

Posted by: Jayjay Jun 5 2011, 08:52 PM

Children do need parents, good ones that act as decent role models. What is better for the childen, that the father goes down for a short sentence this time and hopefully learns his lesson or he is allowed to carry on and eventually seriously harms someone or commits manslaughter and goes down for life. I repeat my question - where do you, personally, draw the line?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 5 2011, 09:40 PM

The perp has to ask the trial judge's permission before the Appeal Court can review the sentence, and the trial judge will only agree to an appeal if there's an arguable point of law. The appeal was granted because the trial judge had not considered the Article 8 rights of the perp's children, and the Court of Appeal ruled that it was necessary.


Yes, exactly so. I wasn't offering my own opinion on the fairness of the original sentence, I just meant that there were no grounds for appealing the length of the sentence on the basis it was given, but when the appeal changed that basis by adding in a consideration of the perp's children's rights then a suspended sentence was fair - "fair" meaning "what the court decided".

I guess it's the subjective fairness of the sentence that's really the issue here isn't it. We all have a gut-feeling for what's "fair", and when the court's considered opinion is at odds with our own feelings inflamed by choice snippets of a sensational cases in the hysterical media, we rage.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 6 2011, 09:50 AM

I don't believe it's right to punish someone for something they might possibly do in the future. Yes, locking up perps indefinitely for a first offence will reduce re-offending rates, but it doesn't create a just society.

You're also confusing punishment with rehabilitation. We send people to jail to punish them because it satisfies a deep-seated need to hurt individuals who don't conform. Prison is a particularly poor way of actually dealing with criminality.

Posted by: Jayjay Jun 7 2011, 10:19 AM

We send people to prison for two reasons:-to protect the public from dangerous people-to give criminals an incentive not to break the law in the future.

Law is often made by setting precedents. A precedent has now been set that criminals who have children will get preferential treatment unless the judge actively demonstrates he has considered the children. You then get into the law of equality.

BTW you did not answer my question on where you draw the line. Are you saying the rights of the child always take precedent and this man should not be jailed under any circumstances?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 7 2011, 11:29 AM

I don't know what equality issues you're referring to, but yes, a consequence of a perp having sole custody of young dependent children is that in some situations she won't receive a custodial sentence that she otherwise would have received. Not always, because the sentence will always be proportianate in the circumstances and sometimes the need for a custodial sentence will outweigh the children's rights for a family life, but there will be times when a perp will be saved prison for the sake of the children. I think that's a good thing.


I've answered that very fully, though maybe it wasn't the answer you wanted: The Article 8 right to a family life is not an absolute right, it's a qualified right, and so it never takes precedence, but the right must be considered in arriving at the appropriate sentence. The sentence must be proportianate in the circumstances. Some circumstances will require a custodial sentence even when that infringes the rights of victims, and in some circumstances the rights of the victims will be just enough for the perp to avoid prison.

If I understand you, it is your position that the rights of the victims are always subordinated to any need for a custodial sentence, and I can't agree that this is just.

A sentence has always been a balance between different factors, some urging for a harsher sentence, some for a more lenient one. Should the perp's children's rights be ignored because they're somehow guilty by association? In this case one of the perp's accomplices got off with a caution so there's no obvious over-riding need for a custodial sentence, and for deterrence and rehabilitiation there are better options than prison anyways.

Posted by: Bloggo Jun 7 2011, 11:44 AM

When an individual makes a decision to trample over the "rights" of an innocent victim they should do so knowing that by that action they relinguish their own "rights" and that of those who sadly depend on them.
The exploitation of the "human rights" laws are allowing carreer criminals such as this to continue to make other peoples lives a misery, consume huge amounts of badly needed public money and waste the time of the police and the law courts.
It needs to stop.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 7 2011, 12:06 PM

Can you explain why the state should waive the rights of the children when the parent is guilty of an offence? For example it wouldn't appear to be very just that the children could be tortured without trial just because their parent got arrested.

It costs money to administer a just society. Mob rule is cheaper, but it has other problems.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 7 2011, 12:07 PM

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13679665

aww... Diddums - Did someone make them cold and hungry. Did they have to huddle together to keep warm. Pathetic parents for allowing these kids to do this.

Posted by: Bloggo Jun 7 2011, 12:23 PM

It's not April 1st is it?

Posted by: Darren Jun 7 2011, 04:50 PM

I wonder if the parents are being prosecuted for knowingly allowing their children to be truants?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 7 2011, 05:47 PM

I think 'kettling' should be banned except in the most extreme circumstances, although the parents should be cautioned for letting the kids go on the protest when their kids were not too ill to attend class.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 7 2011, 07:31 PM

Do any of you know what the tactic now called 'kettling' is?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 7 2011, 08:13 PM

If we don't, I get the feeling we're about to find out.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 7 2011, 08:13 PM

If we don't, I get the feeling we're about to find out.

Posted by: Jayjay Jun 7 2011, 10:09 PM

Where police herd a crowd into an area where there is no or only way way out.

Posted by: Darren Jun 8 2011, 10:01 AM

Sounds to me like the police actually aided their right to protest.

Just because it wasn't done on the protesters terms...

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 8 2011, 10:14 AM

Darren. They should have been given free drink and food and given fur coats if they were a bit cold. Its a disgrace.... They should get hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers money in recompense. God help this country if the kids of today won't go on a protest again because they got a bit cold and did not get fed and watered. Hardly Tianamen square was it?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 8 2011, 12:18 PM

Allowing the police to do it is one (albeit small) step closer to Tienanmen.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 8 2011, 12:22 PM

In my view that is poppycock. Controlling a march / protest so that it does not cause criminal damage is different somewhat to executing people.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 8 2011, 01:18 PM

Allowing the police to imprison without charge, children that are guilty of little more than protesting is not poppycock to me. Notwithstanding I said it was one small step closer...

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 8 2011, 01:20 PM

Who said anything about imprison?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 8 2011, 01:21 PM

Effectively that is what they are doing. In fact it is even worse than that; people are denied rights that you would get in prison.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 8 2011, 03:02 PM

What do you mean 'Effectively'? The tactics used by Police allow a way out for protesters. If they want to leave they can. Or they can stay where they are and carry on protesting - as is there right. Perhaps you think that people should be allowed to protest anywhere? How about the House of Commons?

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 8 2011, 03:49 PM

Kettling might provide an exit, other times it does not. I understand that the children were 'contained' for 8 hours.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13679665

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Jun 8 2011, 04:01 PM

Perhaps they should have been in School.....

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 8 2011, 06:16 PM

Yes they should. I wonder also, how many should have been at work, or Uni, or whatever...

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 8 2011, 08:23 PM

That is a key phrase, as we do not 'know' anything.

'Kettling' is the latest media catchphrase to add drama to a fairly passive activity.

As it happens, I do not 'know' what the tactic actually is, but I am finding out.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 8 2011, 09:48 PM

We do know that the kids are going to court over their alleged illegal detainment. I can't see this would be the case if they were free to go home at the time of their 'detainment'.


You say you don't know what kettling is, yet you know it is "the latest media catchphrase to add drama to a fairly passive activity".

I can see a use for kettling, but its use does appear to breach certain rights.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 8 2011, 10:03 PM

Posted by: Strafin Jun 8 2011, 10:47 PM

And the police do actively kill people now.

Posted by: Andy Capp Jun 8 2011, 11:11 PM

And what has this point got to do with anything?


Kettling is slang for a ring of police who restrain a group of people to prevent all or some of them from conducting malicious acts. It is usually applied when the police believe a group of people contain elements intent on causing a disturbance. They may or may not filter out the contained protagonists. Kettling is usually oppressive, protracted and indiscriminate. It is also effective in quelling the appetite of would be violent protesters. Challenges to the validity of kettling in law have been met with mixed success and failure, with decisions coming down on both sides.

Whether it is a media 'badge' or not, I'm not sure is relevant in my case. 'Shoplifting' is a type of theft from shops, usually when the shop is open and the theft is usually of small quantities and with an attempt by the perpetrator to be discrete; 'joyriding' is a type of car stealing where the person doesn't intend to keep the car but goes for a drive usually in a reckless manner and just for personal thrills; 'mugging' is a type of robbery, but where violence is applied - I'd use robbed where someone has property stolen from their person without the application of physical violence - but it was implied, and mugging where physical violence is used to rob someone. None of these are official, but my understanding of the terms.


NWNREADER...did you not read the word 'appear' in my sentence?

I am fully aware that the police can detain any person or people if they have reason to believe that person or people are likely to go and cause a disturbance. There have been allegations of police abusing their powers to do this; it must be proportional to the threat, but there have been allegations of people not being able to go 'to the bathroom' or have a drink (other times this has been permitted), or have nothing to do with the demo, for instance.

PS - I wish you'd quote properly.

Posted by: Jayjay Jun 19 2011, 03:54 PM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2005374/Commons-dog-ban-breaches-human-rights-says-MP--hes-member-Barking.html

You could not make it up.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 19 2011, 09:12 PM

Sorry but it's not at all obvious to me what you're complaining about. Would you sooner live in a world ruled by dog-hating jobsworths?

Posted by: Strafin Jun 20 2011, 04:34 PM

This is an example of two things, MP's thinking they are above the law, and the HRA being used for something totally ridiculous. I have worked in two places where dogs were allowed; in the first one the dogs were just annoying, barking whilst you were on the phone and such. In the second place we had several instances of damage to property, and also dog bites, in one case serious which led to the dog being put down. I don't think it is an acceptable risk these days to have domestic dogs in a workplace. Also this guy as a lawmaker should really be setting an example. Fight the policy for sure but do it through the proper channels.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 20 2011, 09:23 PM

Why buy a dog if you don't have the lifestyle to look after it appropriately? Wife can't do it, apparently, so 'we' have to provide the accommodation, give the owner 'walkies' time, etc etc......
Bad example to set, Mr MP. Workplace is for work.

Posted by: Jayjay Jun 21 2011, 06:20 PM

If he wins this case, the logical next move is for parents to take their children into work.

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 21 2011, 07:50 PM

Yes. Well, if you work for the state anyways, and your right to bring your children to work is always balanced against the problems this might raise - Article 8 isn't an absolute right remember - but yes, it's possible that a limited right for parents employed in the public sector to bring their children to work with them is a consequence of the HRA.

Of course the MP isn't actually proposing to take the issue to court, he's only appealing to the office manager who as a public officer is obliged to make office rules compliant with the HRA, so it wouldn't actually create a legal precedent as such because it's entirely possible that the jobsworth will get some perspective and allow dogs in anyways - all the best hotels allow dogs in, and the PM even has a cat on his staff.

Do you think it would signal the end of civilisation as we know it if public sector employers were obliged, where it was practical, to provide some kind of creche facilities? I'd have thought that would be an excellent idea.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 21 2011, 08:49 PM

Why only public sector?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Jun 21 2011, 09:05 PM

It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right, but it's only public authorities that have to respect your Convention rights. The HRA does not make it unlawful for a private company or individual to do something which is incompatible with a Convention right, so the HRA won't oblige private companies to provide creches.

It's a fundamental thing about the HRA that people seem to miss - it's a minimum standard of state morality - because history tells us that states have been only too happy to behave unconscionably.

Posted by: NWNREADER Jun 22 2011, 12:50 PM

Surely the quality of the idea is not fixed by the law? If we only did what the law made us do we would be in a sorry state. Likewise, if the principles of 'Ooman Roights' only apply to the State engine, then the two-state society is not far behind......