Crouchie's Lawyer Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 Am I the only one who gets completely peeved off when these Human Rights groups pan on about things. For example, if Osama Bin Laden were to ever be caught, you could bet your boots on some HR gimp coming out saying he shouldnt be treated badly, should have a TV in prison, should have a choice of meals in prison etc etc. Like the amount of time you can detain someone suspected of terror charges. IMO if your innocent, you have nothing to worry about. Yet HR gimps come out saying its against their rights to detain them for x amount of days. One question... Would you be happier not detaining them, for them to then go and blow up hundreds or thousands of innocent people?! A few innocent people being detained for a few extra days is IMO a hell of a lot better than letting the guilty go a few days earlier! Discuss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 I agree with you but it's when they get things wrong that it impacts innocent peoples lives. You are right, if you are innocent you have nothing to worry about, but once you have been locked up for 6 weeks there will be an air of suspicion around you from other people and you could well have lost your job. That can impact on families a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dark Sotonic Mills Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 That's right, Human Rights laws are only for terrorists. Have you actually ever read the European Convention on Human Rights or the Human Rights Act? I suspect not. May I suggest that you spend half an hour doing so, and then tell us that you think that they are wrongly constructed and should be repealed. Sun-reader knee-jerk reactions help no-one. Please inform yourself before you make a comment otherwise it makes you look foolish. Oh and by the way, the right to be brought before a court and to hear the charges against you as soon as possible is not just part of the HRA, it was enshrined in law by the Magna Carta in a day not too well known for its liberalistic approach to justice. By the way, the tenets of the HRA are shown below. I hope you can agree that they are fairly important rights, which everyone has relied on for centuries but are now entered into legislation. Article 1 Right to life Article 3 Prohibition of torture Article 4 Prohibition of slavery and forced labour Article 5 Right to liberty and security Article 6 Right to a fair trial Article 7 No punishment without law Article 8 Right to respect for private and family life Article 9 Freedom of thought, conscience and religion Article 10 Freedom of expression Article 11 Freedom of assembly and association Article 12 Right to marry Article 14 Prohibition of discrimination The Second Protocol Article 2 Right to education Article 3 Right to free elections The Sixth Protocol Article 1 Abolition of the death penalty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 If this happened and then this happened, surely this would happen and that would **** me off. Once again you are putting forward both sided of the argument and disagreeing with yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Bates Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 Isn't it just a little ironic to see a group of pro-lifers throwing eggs at an abortion clinic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baj Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 Like the amount of time you can detain someone suspected of terror charges. IMO if your innocent, you have nothing to worry about. Yet HR gimps come out saying its against their rights to detain them for x amount of days. One question... Would you be happier not detaining them, for them to then go and blow up hundreds or thousands of innocent people?! A few innocent people being detained for a few extra days is IMO a hell of a lot better than letting the guilty go a few days earlier! Discuss I'd be more worried about people like you actually approving these plans? **** me, seriously you think it's ok to shove someone in jail without trial indefinatley? Bet you'd be the first to complain if it was you... What's most shocking to me is people's attitude towards things like cctv and changes to our laws in respect to "terrorism". Our freedoms are being stripped away on a daily basis, we have more CCTV cameras watching our everymove in this country per capita than anywhere else on the globe, assume its alright if they stick them in your bedroom, toilet and lounge then INS? After all, if you're not doing anything wrong then it doesnt matter, right? We should be thankful a little for CCTV i guess, crime figures have plummeted since the 70's, right? hmm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 some of these human rights groups are so small yet they get so much media attention.. EG...Liberty has less than 9k members (i think) yet the head of the group appears on the BBC news and question time now and then.. as for CCTV and what baj says...I agree...the idea of fighting terrorism isfine..but they seem to be using cameras tgo get monetry gain...how many different speed cameras are there these days?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crouchie's Lawyer Posted 20 October, 2008 Author Share Posted 20 October, 2008 That's right, Human Rights laws are only for terrorists. Have you actually ever read the European Convention on Human Rights or the Human Rights Act? I suspect not. May I suggest that you spend half an hour doing so, and then tell us that you think that they are wrongly constructed and should be repealed. Sun-reader knee-jerk reactions help no-one. Please inform yourself before you make a comment otherwise it makes you look foolish. Oh and by the way, the right to be brought before a court and to hear the charges against you as soon as possible is not just part of the HRA, it was enshrined in law by the Magna Carta in a day not too well known for its liberalistic approach to justice. I have not read the Act no, neither do I entend to. Im sure there are parts of it which are fair and just, however, do not agree to the interfering when it comes to something as big as a terrorism charge. Do you think they should just be let go then? I would be all for charging people straight away, but Im sure as you will no doubt point out, this cannot be done. Which leaves them in a limbo position. Hence why the rule to extend the time they can be detained is so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crouchie's Lawyer Posted 20 October, 2008 Author Share Posted 20 October, 2008 If this happened and then this happened, surely this would happen and that would **** me off. Once again you are putting forward both sided of the argument and disagreeing with yourself. how? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 That's right, Human Rights laws are only for terrorists. Have you actually ever read the European Convention on Human Rights or the Human Rights Act? I suspect not. May I suggest that you spend half an hour doing so, and then tell us that you think that they are wrongly constructed and should be repealed. Sun-reader knee-jerk reactions help no-one. Please inform yourself before you make a comment otherwise it makes you look foolish. Oh and by the way, the right to be brought before a court and to hear the charges against you as soon as possible is not just part of the HRA, it was enshrined in law by the Magna Carta in a day not too well known for its liberalistic approach to justice. No need to get quite so emotional about things. I do think he had a pretty good point in that a bunch of PC knobcheese's will rally around OBL once he has been caught in pretty much the same way as some people were to Saddam Hussain. It goes against the grain to see someone with so much guilt getting "fair" treatment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crouchie's Lawyer Posted 20 October, 2008 Author Share Posted 20 October, 2008 I'd be more worried about people like you actually approving these plans? **** me, seriously you think it's ok to shove someone in jail without trial indefinatley? Bet you'd be the first to complain if it was you... What's most shocking to me is people's attitude towards things like cctv and changes to our laws in respect to "terrorism". Our freedoms are being stripped away on a daily basis, we have more CCTV cameras watching our everymove in this country per capita than anywhere else on the globe, assume its alright if they stick them in your bedroom, toilet and lounge then INS? After all, if you're not doing anything wrong then it doesnt matter, right? We should be thankful a little for CCTV i guess, crime figures have plummeted since the 70's, right? hmm Feel free to point out where I said indefinatley. I did not say Indefinatley, I just said a little longer. If you are going to have a go at me, then please at least get what Im saying right. I wouldnt want CCTV in my home no, and would disagree with the 'big brother' state if they were to use it against you for every little thing possible, however. In the case of terrorism, where they plan to end the lives of innocent people, if a few extra CCTV camera's here or there, emails being monitored, ID cards or even having to spend a few extra days or a week or so in prison means that it would cut down the chances of something like this happening again then I am for it. You may want to take the 'Look at me, im neutral and have no opinions' view on it and will probably call me a Daily Mail reader for having such a view, however, you ask what the HR people, or even the innocent person locked up for a week longer would prefer, being locked up an extra week or their family being blown up by a terrorist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crouchie's Lawyer Posted 20 October, 2008 Author Share Posted 20 October, 2008 as for CCTV and what baj says...I agree...the idea of fighting terrorism isfine..but they seem to be using cameras tgo get monetry gain...how many different speed cameras are there these days?? Hardly the same though. No I do not agree with speed camera's as a money grabbing scheme (which they are) but its not as if these can be classed as being part of a 'big brother state'. Equally, I dont think CCTV camera's (which you find on the high street for example) can be classed as revenue generating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 I'd be more worried about people like you actually approving these plans? **** me, seriously you think it's ok to shove someone in jail without trial indefinatley? Bet you'd be the first to complain if it was you... What's most shocking to me is people's attitude towards things like cctv and changes to our laws in respect to "terrorism". Our freedoms are being stripped away on a daily basis, we have more CCTV cameras watching our everymove in this country per capita than anywhere else on the globe, assume its alright if they stick them in your bedroom, toilet and lounge then INS? After all, if you're not doing anything wrong then it doesnt matter, right? We should be thankful a little for CCTV i guess, crime figures have plummeted since the 70's, right? hmm Got to agree with Baj on this one. A short while ago I saw a bunch of young adults on tv and they were being filmed day and night by cameras and every now and again one of them would go missing. It's big brother gone mad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crouchie's Lawyer Posted 20 October, 2008 Author Share Posted 20 October, 2008 No need to get quite so emotional about things. I do think he had a pretty good point in that a bunch of PC knobcheese's will rally around OBL once he has been caught in pretty much the same way as some people were to Saddam Hussain. It goes against the grain to see someone with so much guilt getting "fair" treatment. Cheers JFP, this is my point exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 Hardly the same though. No I do not agree with speed camera's as a money grabbing scheme (which they are) but its not as if these can be classed as being part of a 'big brother state'. Equally, I dont think CCTV camera's (which you find on the high street for example) can be classed as revenue generating. no no ....and i agree with that side of it.. maybe, less cameras on the motorway for more in the town centres... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dark Sotonic Mills Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 No need to get quite so emotional about things. I do think he had a pretty good point in that a bunch of PC knobcheese's will rally around OBL once he has been caught in pretty much the same way as some people were to Saddam Hussain. It goes against the grain to see someone with so much guilt getting "fair" treatment. I get fairly emotional about it as it's my job and I believe in the HRA implicitly and will do everything I can to defend peoples' rights. One small snapshot of a what if, then what happens and what could happen really isn't the best way to illustrate the massive amount of benefit having rights really is. Compare living in Europe with living somewhere like Iran or Syria where rights are considered less than important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crouchie's Lawyer Posted 20 October, 2008 Author Share Posted 20 October, 2008 We should be thankful a little for CCTV i guess, crime figures have plummeted since the 70's, right? hmm And to say the growth in CCTV camera's is directly linked to the growth in crime levels is absurd. How about the smacking ban? Kids being able to get away with more things without fear of reprival? Surely this breeds less respect and therefore, could be deemed to be a link to crime increasing? Drugs being more easily available and cheaper too, that not one of the reasons as well? Police being targetted on areas like paperwork FFS, meaning less time on 'the beat'. These all have a hell of a lot more relevance to crime rate increases since the 70's than CCTV does Baj. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crouchie's Lawyer Posted 20 October, 2008 Author Share Posted 20 October, 2008 no no ....and i agree with that side of it.. maybe, less cameras on the motorway for more in the town centres... Completely agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 I get fairly emotional about it as it's my job and I believe in the HRA implicitly and will do everything I can to defend peoples' rights. One small snapshot of a what if, then what happens and what could happen really isn't the best way to illustrate the massive amount of benefit having rights really is. Compare living in Europe with living somewhere like Iran or Syria where rights are considered less than important There is always a ying and yang philosophy though, to everything. I agree, it's easy to take a snapshot image of any situation where an existing rule or regulation has made something worse in a given scenario. To compare living in Europe to living in Iran or Syria is an obvious example of where human rights do make peoples lives better, but you are not seeing the full picture. The two latter countries have much more sunshine days per year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crouchie's Lawyer Posted 20 October, 2008 Author Share Posted 20 October, 2008 I get fairly emotional about it as it's my job and I believe in the HRA implicitly and will do everything I can to defend peoples' rights. One small snapshot of a what if, then what happens and what could happen really isn't the best way to illustrate the massive amount of benefit having rights really is. Compare living in Europe with living somewhere like Iran or Syria where rights are considered less than important Oh, I agree with this completely. But there are rights and there are rights. The rights, you and I have as a law abiding citizen which seperate us from the likes of Iran and Syria should be and thankfully are, in place. But its the rights of the criminals which I do not agree with. Why should someone who has raped and murdered an innocent child, be given the same rights as an innocent person? And yes I am fully aware that you are innocent until proven guilty, and if it took a few extra days to clear my name, I for one would have no qualms about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dark Sotonic Mills Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 There is always a ying and yang philosophy though, to everything. ... but you are not seeing the full picture. The two latter countries have much more sunshine days per year. But they don't allow alcohol. Back to yang again... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dark Sotonic Mills Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 Oh, I agree with this completely. But there are rights and there are rights. The rights, you and I have as a law abiding citizen which separate us from the likes of Iran and Syria should be and thankfully are, in place. But its the rights of the criminals which I do not agree with. Why should someone who has raped and murdered an innocent child, be given the same rights as an innocent person? And yes I am fully aware that you are innocent until proven guilty, and if it took a few extra days to clear my name, I for one would have no qualms about it. Because otherwise we would be, as a society, no better than them. Don't forget that they still have the right to remain in prison for the rest of their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mao Cap Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 I think that peasant morons who can't figure out why human rights and civil liberties are important should be detained indefinitely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 No way should Osama be allowed a TV!!!ONE1111ONE!!111 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PompeyLass Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 This is a bit heavy for the Muppet Show ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatch Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 Shouldn't the argument be... Should people who have total disregard of human life, be allowed to be protected by the human rights act. or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bungle Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 I think that peasant morons who can't figure out why human rights and civil liberties are important should be detained indefinitely. +1. Well, at least for 42 days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baj Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 And to say the growth in CCTV camera's is directly linked to the growth in crime levels is absurd. How about the smacking ban? Kids being able to get away with more things without fear of reprival? Surely this breeds less respect and therefore, could be deemed to be a link to crime increasing? Drugs being more easily available and cheaper too, that not one of the reasons as well? Police being targetted on areas like paperwork FFS, meaning less time on 'the beat'. These all have a hell of a lot more relevance to crime rate increases since the 70's than CCTV does Baj. You've completely and utterly misunderstood my point. CCTV cameras are supposedly there as a deterent to crime, yet as crime has risen, I think that shows they aren't achieving the desired affect. And terror? what terror? If we're going to change all these laws and give up basic freedoms to protect us from all this terror... then show me the terror. We were under a much more vicious, sustained and deadly terrorism campaign under the IRA, who killed a lot more people that 3 blokes on a tube train, yet at the time that didnt fit the governments agenda... thank god for the "war on terror" huh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AwaySaint1 Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 I get fairly emotional about it as it's my job and I believe in the HRA implicitly and will do everything I can to defend peoples' rights. One small snapshot of a what if, then what happens and what could happen really isn't the best way to illustrate the massive amount of benefit having rights really is. Compare living in Europe with living somewhere like Iran or Syria where rights are considered less than important I am more interested in why you chose your job in the first place rather than your opinion. I am doing an open uni degree in psychology,can I use you as a case study please. Question one for you is do the lambs keep you awake at night? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Super Saint Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 I am more interested in why you chose your job in the first place rather than your opinion. I am doing an open uni degree in psychology,can I use you as a case study please. Question one for you is do the lambs keep you awake at night? They do me, never bloody satisfied!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 INS, sometimes you're a complete plank. There, I said it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dark Sotonic Mills Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 I am more interested in why you chose your job in the first place rather than your opinion. I am doing an open uni degree in psychology,can I use you as a case study please. Question one for you is do the lambs keep you awake at night? A bit of a cliché, but once I had studied the beginnings of our Human Rights laws as part of the history of the English legal system, it sort of chose me. Until then I had never studied something about which I felt so strongly. And no, the lambs don't keep me awake at night, but the thoughts of millions of people tortured and killed in regimes less humanitarian that ours would do, if I let it. I include the US in that list by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crouchie's Lawyer Posted 20 October, 2008 Author Share Posted 20 October, 2008 Shouldn't the argument be... Should people who have total disregard of human life, be allowed to be protected by the human rights act. or something. Yes, cheers Hatch. This was meant to be my point but got caught up in my ramblings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crouchie's Lawyer Posted 20 October, 2008 Author Share Posted 20 October, 2008 INS, sometimes you're a complete plank. There, I said it. Why? For having an opinion that differs from yours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnnyFartPants Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 A bit of a cliché, but once I had studied the beginnings of our Human Rights laws as part of the history of the English legal system, it sort of chose me. Until then I had never studied something about which I felt so strongly. And no, the lambs don't keep me awake at night, but the thoughts of millions of people tortured and killed in regimes less humanitarian that ours would do, if I let it. I include the US in that list by the way. I don't get this bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AwaySaint1 Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 Dark Sotonic Mills are you a vegetarian ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGTL Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 INS, sometimes you're a complete plank. There, I said it. I hope you gave yourself an infarction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 A bit of a cliché, but once I had studied the beginnings of our Human Rights laws as part of the history of the English legal system, it sort of chose me. Until then I had never studied something about which I felt so strongly. And no, the lambs don't keep me awake at night, but the thoughts of millions of people tortured and killed in regimes less humanitarian than [h]ours would do, if I let it. I include the US in that list by the way. I don't get this bit. Oh come on JFP, use a little grey matter. How about the above..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 I hope you gave yourself an infraction I'm giving Ponty a right talking to..! On another thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ponty Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 Why? For having an opinion that differs from yours? I wouldn't put it as simply as that. Basic human rights are, and always have been, fundamental to our way of life. Picking and choosing, on a whim, who is entitled to those rights goes against everything humanity stands for. I doubt you'd be too impressed if a member of your family was incarcerated for 2 months for giving a terror suspect the time and being seen on CCTV doing so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
St Landrew Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 I would cite INS's ability to question the human rights of people as an example of his human rights. He's lucky he lives in a country which is tolerant of most views. Unfortunately, human rights aren't conveniently matched to an individual's requirements. What is right for one isn't necessarily right for another. They have to cover all circumstances and individuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dark Sotonic Mills Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 This is a bit heavy for the Muppet Show ! Would you rather read a thread like this or one about how many times some eighteen year old got hammered at the weekend and spent the next day 'hanging'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dark Sotonic Mills Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 I would cite INS's ability to question the human rights of people as an example of his human rights. He's lucky he lives in a country which is tolerant of most views. Unfortunately, human rights aren't conveniently matched to an individual's requirements. What is right for one isn't necessarily right for another. They have to cover all circumstances and individuals. Precisely. He can stand on a street corner anywhere in Britain and shout anti-Royalist slogans or question Gordon Brown's parentage and sexuality and maybe just get a few strange looks from passers-by. In Tehran though, try shouting about how President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should be strung up for kiddy-fiddling and see what the reaction is there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thedelldays Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 Precisely. He can stand on a street corner anywhere in Britain and shout anti-Royalist slogans or question Gordon Brown's parentage and sexuality and maybe just get a few strange looks from passers-by. In Tehran though, try shouting about how President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should be strung up for kiddy-fiddling and see what the reaction is there. although..he probably could not shout his views on britishness and or the rights and wrongs of islam... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AwaySaint1 Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 In Tehran though, try shouting about how President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should be strung up for kiddy-fiddling and see what the reaction is there. Can I stand outside west quay and shout about Gordon brown kiddy fiddling then ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dark Sotonic Mills Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 Can I stand outside west quay and shout about Gordon brown kiddy fiddling then ? Yes, you have the right to freedom of expression. He has every right to sue you for slander though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dark Sotonic Mills Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 although..he probably could not shout his views on britishness and or the rights and wrongs of islam... If his words are designed to incite racial hatred then that would be a no-no of course. But to shout, say, "The Christian God is the only true God" would be fine. It happens every Sunday all over the country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crouchie's Lawyer Posted 20 October, 2008 Author Share Posted 20 October, 2008 I wouldn't put it as simply as that. Basic human rights are, and always have been, fundamental to our way of life. Picking and choosing, on a whim, who is entitled to those rights goes against everything humanity stands for. I doubt you'd be too impressed if a member of your family was incarcerated for 2 months for giving a terror suspect the time and being seen on CCTV doing so. I wouldnt be too happy about it no, however, I would understand it, and if by encarserating (sp) a member of my family, it meant that someone who had actually commit a terror related crime was detained for long enough to gain enough evidence against them and stopped them commiting the crime then I would have tolerate it. I may hav mis-worded my original point, however as Hatch has said, what I should have possibly said is: Should people who have no regard for Human Life still be protected by these Human Rights laws? And why is it people rally for them getting these rights? I can see its probably more for the rights itself, rather than the person the particular case relates to. However, even if I were so hell bent on defending human rights, I would turn a blind eye to it on cases such as Saddam Hussain and Osama Bin Laden. This is my own personal opinion of course. I think a lot of people have not understood my original point, which is probably half my fault as I didnt word it right, however, I am not going on about your basic human rights in general. I would challenge any person who says they would prefer hundreds of people to be innocently killed in preference to themselves of one of their loved ones being detained for a few weeks innocently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 Precisely. He can stand on a street corner anywhere in Britain and shout anti-Royalist slogans or question Gordon Brown's parentage and sexuality and maybe just get a few strange looks from passers-by. In Tehran though, try shouting about how President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad should be strung up for kiddy-fiddling and see what the reaction is there. ??? The first would be a point of view, the second would be slander, unless he could prove it. If the same were done here, he'd be nicked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Dark Sotonic Mills Posted 20 October, 2008 Share Posted 20 October, 2008 ??? The first would be a point of view, the second would be slander, unless he could prove it. If the same were done here, he'd be nicked. No. It would be up to the person slandered to issue a civil claim. The police wouldn't take sides as it isn't a criminal matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now