ChatterBank1 min ago
the lunatics have taken over the asylum....
33 Answers
ian huntley is suing the prison authoroties for £20.000 after the recent attack on him for failing in their ''duty of care'' towards him...he is GUARANTEED £10,000....the world has gone mad......
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by stokemaveric. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Anyone who thinks human rights can be taken from someone has an incorrect understanding of what a human right should be. It is a right you get because you are human. It can only be removed if you cease to be human. Unfortunately the authorities seem to have failed to understand that definition too and try to class all sorts of garbage as "human rights".
As for this payment, can't see what the fuss is about. Appreciate there is little sympathy for the guy, but it is a moral & legal duty we have to ensure no abuse of our prisoners. And anyway, £10k is hardly a massive income for all the time he is going to serve. Storm in a teacup.
As for this payment, can't see what the fuss is about. Appreciate there is little sympathy for the guy, but it is a moral & legal duty we have to ensure no abuse of our prisoners. And anyway, £10k is hardly a massive income for all the time he is going to serve. Storm in a teacup.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Quinlad & Old_Geezer - “I honestly think that people on this site have no idea what 'human rights' means.” …. “... It is a right you get because you are human. It can only be removed if you cease to be human... “
I'm sorry but I think you're both coming at this the wrong way. People don't misunderstand what 'human rights' are. What they cannot get their heads around is: Why should a person who has violated another's human rights so fundamentally be protected by those very same laws that they chose to deny another?
People know what human rights are. But what most people don't approve of is those rights being extended to people who, through their actions, pay no heed to other person's human rights.
I see 'human rights' in the same way as 'free speech'. Yes, everyone should be protected by human rights just as they should be able to say whatever they feel is right. However, the caveat to 'free speech' is that it should not incite violence. The same should apply to human rights – once you cross the line by denying those same human rights to another by using murderous violence, the law should come down on you like a ton of bricks.
Free speech and human rights are wonderful legal bubbles to live in if you play by the rules. But if you step outside of those bubbles, why should the very same laws that you have chosen to violate apply to you?
I'm sorry but I think you're both coming at this the wrong way. People don't misunderstand what 'human rights' are. What they cannot get their heads around is: Why should a person who has violated another's human rights so fundamentally be protected by those very same laws that they chose to deny another?
People know what human rights are. But what most people don't approve of is those rights being extended to people who, through their actions, pay no heed to other person's human rights.
I see 'human rights' in the same way as 'free speech'. Yes, everyone should be protected by human rights just as they should be able to say whatever they feel is right. However, the caveat to 'free speech' is that it should not incite violence. The same should apply to human rights – once you cross the line by denying those same human rights to another by using murderous violence, the law should come down on you like a ton of bricks.
Free speech and human rights are wonderful legal bubbles to live in if you play by the rules. But if you step outside of those bubbles, why should the very same laws that you have chosen to violate apply to you?
