Bailing out the Euro

[Phone]

Cory,

 

You're ambivalent. On one hand you clearly point out "rights" "privileges" "opportunities", etc. are different. If you mean "rights" as you clearly have defined and pointed out in previous posts - then I am against "rights" to darn near any social enterprise, including family. Maybe, just maybe, some responsibility should be forthcoming.

 

Phone

[chesters1]

No it was not.

 

 

 

So you would happily rescind your right to a family life?

 

"The appeal was successful and when giving the reasons for the success the judge did comment on the couple's cat. It was taken into account as part of the couple's life together. "

 

unfortunately i don't have access to the court records to verify it but then i doubt you have either so the cat wins err it wasn't there either so its hearsay

 

explain exactly what "family life" is ,does "family life" stop you being imprisoned? stop you being sent overseas in the forces ,being evicted from your house ,please explain this right we all have ,please explain why we have any rights at all in law when they're so easily overlooked by the law!

 

is it i have the right to marry ,that's not such a hard and fast thing to do today ,OH the right to have children maybe ,Dash their taken away on a whim by some self opinionated social worker ,help me Cory what is this mysterious right we have

 

we dont have any rights at all! why we seem to is that government at that particular moment isn't bothered by us doing what we do at that time

 

OH here it is

the biggest load of shite you ever could read

http://www.hrea.org/index.php?doc_id=425

 

there are no rights

 

Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) (article 16)

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948. As a resolution, it is not itself formally legally binding despite common assumptions to the contrary. However, it did establish important principles and values which were later elaborated in legally binding UN treaties. Moreover, a number of its provisions have become part of customary international law. Article 16 upholds family as the natural and fundamental unit in society. It establishes the right of men and women to marry and found a family; their equal rights as to the marriage, and that consent to marriage should be freely given.

 

 

IF its only a right if it becomes law in a country (rather as a global law) then its extremely easy to adjust it or remove it completely and nothing would change ,there were families ,even marriages before 1948 even children i hear

remember we are a sovereign country its up to us what laws we use

Edited October 5, 2011 by chesters1

[Andrew]

there are no rights

 

remember we are a sovereign country its up to us what laws we use

 

And judging by some remarks, that is a stupid way to run a country, we should knuckle down to the pompous gits who sit on the EU boards and dictate to us how curved a bloody banana should be, or how red an apple should be. We should repent and come into line with the European States.

As for human rights. There was a story ( TRUE MAY I ADD ) not long ago about a convicted serial robber who took the law courts to the court of human rights, he stated that he HUMAN RIGHTS were violated because he was denied the right to be with his children ! even though he had done a serious robbery. And he WON, a thieving scroat who has done nothing to help society, paying taxes etc, i would have locked the scroat up and threw away the key.

 

One thing i would love to know is this.

 

A pervert rapes and murders a child, he is imprisoned and is attacked in jail. He sue's the state because his human rights have been violated !

That filthy degenerative excuse of a human being lost all human rights when he raped and killed that child. Another true story from this country.

He should have had his life taken away from him.

[Renrag39]

I don't think you'll have any naysayers on that count Andrew...

 

Renrag

[captain cojones]

As for human rights. There was a story ( TRUE MAY I ADD ) not long ago about a convicted serial robber who took the law courts to the court of human rights, he stated that he HUMAN RIGHTS were violated because he was denied the right to be with his children ! even though he had done a serious robbery. And he WON,

 

That is terrible, im sure it would have been widely reported by the Uk press.

 

Can you put up a link to the story so we can read the full details.

[Andrew]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-notti...mshire-13573830

 

And then this piece of scum, i wonder if he and the children mother are still together.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-12007100

 

Another "disproportionate" case

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law...in-Britain.html

 

It is now the number one appeal case against deportation

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13...ts-stay-UK.html

Edited October 6, 2011 by Andrew

[Andrew]

More claims against " human rights "

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6142416.stm

 

And this scumbag

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...ked-prison.html

 

He claims he deserved better protection because of his high profile case. WTF

Edited October 6, 2011 by Andrew

[captain cojones]

Those cases back up my suggestion earlier that its the judges interpretation of parts of the act that is at fault.

 

Those claims would have been laughed at here. Its your justice system that needs throwing out not the act.

[Andrew]

And maybe your system is breaching human rights ?

[corydoras]

And maybe your system is breaching human rights ?

We don't have crap like that appearing in French tabloids either. The problem is home grown, but it's easier to blame someone else.