TEACHER GETS HER JOB BACK

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Capn_Pugwash, Feb 7, 2008.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. About bloody time.

    Yet another example of the victim becoming the guilty one by trying to defend themselves when the police etc had failed to take action to deal with trouble makers.

    The toerags who damaged her property should now be punished, as should their parents.

    Hanging's too good etc.
     
  2. I saw this news item. Two years she put up with this due to police inaction as usual.
    Personally if it happened to me I would be 999 them every time, and continue to do so until they did the work they were being paid to do. These calls are also recorded so they wont be able to deny anything.

    The BBC said it had been inundated with emails and texts and not one of them was against her.
     
  3. At the moment, and due to Bliars total acceptance of the HR Act, it's the toerags rights to terrorise, damage or harm.

    It's not her right to be able to defend herself, or expect the authorities to come to her assistance.

    However this might change if Cameron gets in ..... and keeps his promise ?
     
  4. Ah - you have hit the nail on the head, 'and keeps his promise' that is the 64,000 dollar question (or maybe 64 million in this day) will he keep his promise? No politician of any pursuasion has yet.
     
  5. Link here.

    I liked the story on the radio a few years back about the elderly woman who reported youths breaking into her shed late at night and vandalising it. She was told that no police were available for at least two hours. She then called back to tell them not to bother as she had shot them. Within minutes, her house was surrounded by armed police who arrested the perpetrators.

    "I thought you said you'd shot them," said the senior policeman.

    "I thought you said you had nobody available for two hours," she replied.
     
  6. Just to put ECHR in contexte, the UK became the first state to sign the Convention on 8 March 1951, and the first to ratify it with effect from 23 September 1953, so it somewhat predates Blair by a year or so. What Blair changed was principly that cases under EHCR could be decided in the UK rather than going to the European Court of Human Rights as had been the case before. In many cases the Government has been amply warned that changes in legislation were required to avoid some of the nonsenses that have happened since, but of course NuLabor has always known best haven't they. The problems lie not so much in the ECHR itself but in how we both apply it and frame our laws to allow people to wriggle out. Of course NuLabor as ever sits with it's thumb up its proverbial accepting no responsibility and lets the Wail and other ofload the blaim from them to th EHCR relying on the natural xenophobia of the press.
     
  7. Nice one!
     
  8. Prey, please point out the relevant sections of the HR Act that stipulate that? I done condone the toerags, but I believe that in a civilised society, upholding due process is a pillar. Measured self defence is legal. This case has nowt to do with the HR Act, and everything to do with an ineffectual police force coupled with a supine judiciary based on ill-thought out legisation and an underfunded prison system. All of which is the direct responsibility of the Liebour government.

    Like the HASAW Act and DP Act, the HR Act is used as a battering ram by ill-informed individuals who have no understanding of the law or its interpretation.
     
  9. BZ Oslo.

    Whitemouse, please don't conflate the nonsence in the Daily Wail and its sister titles with facts. The HR Act facilitates British courts adjudicating in cases where violations of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, that would otherwise go before the ECHR in Strasbourg, have arisen.

    No religious individual or group has any entitlement to violate the rights and freedoms of others. Article 9(2) of the Convention. The problem is that HMG has often interpretated Article 9 in such a way that it ignores Article 9(2) and accentuates Article 9(1).



    Article 9

    (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.

    (2) Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

    Steve.
     

Share This Page