Jerry's Ideal Manifesto

shadbolt · 22-10-2004, 12:35 PM

Human rights (closure of frilly rights, back to basics)
· Minority groups to lose preferential treatment to favour integration INTO phpbb_whole, proactive strategy to facilitate integration of non-indiginous groups e.g. multi-langauge support to be reduced to non-signage and commonwealth countries only
· Minority groups to lose support and funding from public funds other than as charitable trusts
· Forfeiture of extended legal civil rights whilst undertaking criminal activity. That is a burglar who breaks a leg when on a raid has no free access to legal aid (funds have to come from their own assets), health or safety compensations, cannot sue householder, householder can take any measure in their means to evict illegal entry. This will not excuse the need for a judicial review, however the review will enshrine the right of the lawful person to take any necessary action to protect themselves, their families and their property.

DAtkins · 14-01-2005, 09:08 PM

Whilst I entirely sympathise with the spirit of “Shadbolt” I hope that he appreciates by qualifying just who can have “full Human Rights” and who can’t defeats the objective. Where the fault lies as “Shadbolt” correctly identifies, is the situation where unlimited public funding is granted defending those who have committed criminal acts etc. It is the organisation that grants the funds that is at fault not the concept itself. The Legal Service Commission. As someone who has seen Public Funding refused to elderly residents wishing to remain in their Residential Care Homes. (The same good people whose taxes paid for the Care Homes in the first place) one can understand the fury of the relatives and residents. Judicial Reviews are a blunt instrument that decides not on the morality of the decision but on the mechanics of taking it. (Gross malpractice and procedural impropriety.) Widening the debate INTO phpbb_a UKIP cause, many with experience of JR’s believe that the slavish (some would say lazy) dependence on the European Human Rights Act to obtain justice is unnecessary as the British Legal System has case law in abundance to cover any situation. Over to you.

Sarumano · 24-01-2005, 12:48 AM

To quote Isaac Asimov, "What do you mean- 'Human'?"

I agree you lose 'rights' when engaged in criminal activity; you are making yourselves a target, after all. You have the right to break INTO phpbb_my house 'cos I've more posessions that you? Then I have the right to break your face while you're doing it.

I agree with making minorities fall in with the crowd- but only in respect of having no EXTRA rights than anyone else. Positive discrimination should be banned. But so should discrimination.
Never forget Minorities are Human too.

Isn't this a religious question, not a legal one? Bring the Church INTO phpbb_the courts on Moral issues.

22-10-2004, 12:35 PM	#1 (permalink)
shadbolt Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Richmond, London Posts: 121	Jerry's Ideal Manifesto - HUMAN RIGHTS Human rights (closure of frilly rights, back to basics) · Minority groups to lose preferential treatment to favour integration INTO phpbb_whole, proactive strategy to facilitate integration of non-indiginous groups e.g. multi-langauge support to be reduced to non-signage and commonwealth countries only · Minority groups to lose support and funding from public funds other than as charitable trusts · Forfeiture of extended legal civil rights whilst undertaking criminal activity. That is a burglar who breaks a leg when on a raid has no free access to legal aid (funds have to come from their own assets), health or safety compensations, cannot sue householder, householder can take any measure in their means to evict illegal entry. This will not excuse the need for a judicial review, however the review will enshrine the right of the lawful person to take any necessary action to protect themselves, their families and their property. __________________ God Bless England

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

14-01-2005, 09:08 PM	#2 (permalink)
DAtkins Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Essex Posts: 34	Whilst I entirely sympathise with the spirit of “Shadbolt” I hope that he appreciates by qualifying just who can have “full Human Rights” and who can’t defeats the objective. Where the fault lies as “Shadbolt” correctly identifies, is the situation where unlimited public funding is granted defending those who have committed criminal acts etc. It is the organisation that grants the funds that is at fault not the concept itself. The Legal Service Commission. As someone who has seen Public Funding refused to elderly residents wishing to remain in their Residential Care Homes. (The same good people whose taxes paid for the Care Homes in the first place) one can understand the fury of the relatives and residents. Judicial Reviews are a blunt instrument that decides not on the morality of the decision but on the mechanics of taking it. (Gross malpractice and procedural impropriety.) Widening the debate INTO phpbb_a UKIP cause, many with experience of JR’s believe that the slavish (some would say lazy) dependence on the European Human Rights Act to obtain justice is unnecessary as the British Legal System has case law in abundance to cover any situation. Over to you.

24-01-2005, 12:48 AM	#3 (permalink)
Sarumano Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Salisbury Posts: 309	To quote Isaac Asimov, "What do you mean- 'Human'?" I agree you lose 'rights' when engaged in criminal activity; you are making yourselves a target, after all. You have the right to break INTO phpbb_my house 'cos I've more posessions that you? Then I have the right to break your face while you're doing it. I agree with making minorities fall in with the crowd- but only in respect of having no EXTRA rights than anyone else. Positive discrimination should be banned. But so should discrimination. Never forget Minorities are Human too. Isn't this a religious question, not a legal one? Bring the Church INTO phpbb_the courts on Moral issues.