mel b3 Posted February 9, 2021 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2021 11 minutes ago, TIGHTCHOKE said: No need to apologise Mate, we just see things differently. we dont see things that differently dave , i fully understand and accept how things work(and have to work) in a civilized society , but , it still really sticks in my throat that someone like gary glitter gets a potentially life saving injection , whilst someone that is at a greater risk of catching the virus (and potentially suffering the most serious effects) , has to carry on going to work every day without that protection . i just cant see how he is at a greater risk when sitting in his relatively safe cell with a relatively small and contained community around him , than a 64 year old diabetic or asthmatic lady working on a till in asda , that comes into close contact with thousands of unknown customers every day . having said all of that . i also think that his life is relatively worthless , as a convicted child molester sitting in prison as a punishment for having sex with children , and to keep other children safe while hes in there , when compared to the old lady , sitting at the till in asda serving the community , and i just cant see how any right thinking person could think otherwise . please feel free to swap the old lady for anyone else at high risk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted February 9, 2021 Report Share Posted February 9, 2021 Those who have no regard for human beings and seriously breach their basic human rights, should loose there's, Gary glitter should get nothing but the most severe punishment posible and nothing more,his only purpose in life (since they won't execute him) is to serve as a warning for other nonces who look at his miserable life. Unfortunately it won't happen, hopefully the human rights act can go in the bin now we're out of the EU. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newbie to this Posted February 9, 2021 Report Share Posted February 9, 2021 45 minutes ago, 12gauge82 said: hopefully the human rights act can go in the bin now we're out of the EU. No chance, the UK played a major role in most of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloyd90 Posted February 9, 2021 Report Share Posted February 9, 2021 7 hours ago, 243deer said: Lloyd I take it that you do not know anyone personally that has had their lives and the lives of their parents ruined by a sex offender? I do happen to know such a family. Their offender received 15 years for rape and was out in 10. They are a god fearing family and have done their utmost to help heal their daughter but to no avail. Personally I simply cannot see how they received justice from this moral high ground society of ours as she will never be free of the wrong that has been done to her yet her fully functioning attacker is free to enjoy the rest of his life as well as there being an average 13% chance that he will re-offend. Will you be the one to tell the family of his next victim what they can now expect? Making a considered judgement to 100% protect society in the future does not reduce society to the same level as a criminal. Your ascertion that the majority are against the death penalty is unproven. l would quite like an opportunity for a referendum however this has been denied on numerous occassions, one has to wonder why? I’m a social worker. Ive spent the last 5 years helping children in care homes get over that type of abuse, as well as all other sorts. Domestic violence, drug addict parents, children boring with issues because of parents using substances when pregnant. Your assumption that I am naive to these things could not be further off the mark. I now work in an emergency team, doing emergency mental health and child protection work out of hours. You might know one person that’s happened to... I can assure you by now I likely know hundreds if I added them all up. What I can tell you is sticking a slug through the back of those scum bags heads (as much as we would all like to see that happen) does nothing to repair the damage done. Inadequate sentences for sexual offenders is not the discussion we are having. I said we don’t mistreat our prisoners. That doesn’t mean I agree with sexual offenders being let out of prison after short terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloyd90 Posted February 9, 2021 Report Share Posted February 9, 2021 3 hours ago, 12gauge82 said: Those who have no regard for human beings and seriously breach their basic human rights, should loose there's, Gary glitter should get nothing but the most severe punishment posible and nothing more,his only purpose in life (since they won't execute him) is to serve as a warning for other nonces who look at his miserable life. Unfortunately it won't happen, hopefully the human rights act can go in the bin now we're out of the EU. https://www.rifemagazine.co.uk/2015/06/not-just-for-criminals-why-we-need-a-human-rights-act/ Considering we pretty much wrote the HRA I doubt it. It’s also massively important to protect everyday citizens all the time. As said, you can’t pick and choose who does and does not get Human Rights ... that’s obviously the point! A semi decent article above about the HRA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saltings Posted February 10, 2021 Report Share Posted February 10, 2021 (edited) garry gets the jab oops a waste of a jab Edited February 10, 2021 by Saltings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fisheruk Posted February 10, 2021 Report Share Posted February 10, 2021 I’m with Lloyd90 on this one. Certainly don’t condone the actions of anyone convicted of a crime, involving children or otherwise. If we deny the jab to prisoners we wouldn’t let them choke and gasp to death with Covid-19, they’d be hospitalised like the rest of us. That would mean the good folk in the NHS would have to look after him and that would cost extra precious resources which could otherwise be used by others and would inevitably put even more pressure on staff already overstretched. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
12gauge82 Posted February 10, 2021 Report Share Posted February 10, 2021 8 hours ago, Lloyd90 said: https://www.rifemagazine.co.uk/2015/06/not-just-for-criminals-why-we-need-a-human-rights-act/ Considering we pretty much wrote the HRA I doubt it. It’s also massively important to protect everyday citizens all the time. As said, you can’t pick and choose who does and does not get Human Rights ... that’s obviously the point! A semi decent article above about the HRA. No but we could abolish it and replace it with something better. We did fine as a country before its existence in 1997 and I don't recall decent people being persecuted by the government before that date, what did happen however was terrorists would be deported and scumbags could be dealt with a lot easier without them sueing the government for compensation all the time. Decent peoples rights under HRA are breached all the time but because we don't get free legal aid very few normal people get to make it work for them anyway, so what we're left with is an act that protects pedoes, murderers, rapists and terrorists and does very little for decent hard working people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robden Posted February 10, 2021 Report Share Posted February 10, 2021 22 hours ago, mel b3 said: I'm just watching morning TV, and they're discussing the fact that convicted paedophile Gary glitter , has had his covid jab . What are the pw thoughts on the fact that he got a jab , while millions of others are still waiting patiently. My thoughts are . Well I suppose he's an old man , that's more at risk from covid than many others , and as we live in a civilised society ,this is the way that it has to be. But what I'm really thinking is . Civilised society would be better off if he was just suffocated with a pillow in his bed. Please try not to swear. He's another one for the crocodile pit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SpringDon Posted February 10, 2021 Report Share Posted February 10, 2021 The priority of groups is decided by age, vulnerability and role not criminal record. It’s not very complicated and shouldn’t be very difficult to understand but apparently.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discobob Posted February 10, 2021 Report Share Posted February 10, 2021 1 hour ago, 12gauge82 said: No but we could abolish it and replace it with something better. We did fine as a country before its existence in 1997 and I don't recall decent people being persecuted by the government before that date, what did happen however was terrorists would be deported and scumbags could be dealt with a lot easier without them sueing the government for compensation all the time. Decent peoples rights under HRA are breached all the time but because we don't get free legal aid very few normal people get to make it work for them anyway, so what we're left with is an act that protects pedoes, murderers, rapists and terrorists and does very little for decent hard working people. This. The HRA now is actually being used to suppress the majority by a lot of militant minorities and the silent majority are terrified of getting done for breaching someone's rights inadvertently and this gives the minorities the upper hand. Yes - minorities do need to be protected - but this has gone way above and beyond 😞 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udderlyoffroad Posted February 10, 2021 Report Share Posted February 10, 2021 10 hours ago, Lloyd90 said: https://www.rifemagazine.co.uk/2015/06/not-just-for-criminals-why-we-need-a-human-rights-act/ Considering we pretty much wrote the HRA I doubt it. Think you mean we wrote the European Convention on Human Rights, obviously the Human Rights Act, being an act of parliament will have been written by 'us'. It’s also massively important to protect everyday citizens all the time. See current restrictions on freedom of assembly, etc. Still think it protects everyday citizens? And don't tell me it's only temporary and for the 'greater good'. It is demonstrably not temporary (there's no fixed end date) and the latter is very debatable. As said, you can’t pick and choose who does and does not get Human Rights ... that’s obviously the point! A semi decent literate article above about the HRA. Given the way our 'human rights'/civil liberties have been removed from us, with almost zero parliamentary oversight, the HRA is meaningless tosh. Arguing over whether Glitter or whichever child molester should get vaccinated, is nothing but a sideshow to the main event. As for 'government picking and choosing' - nope. A properly written bill of rights or constitution could clearly make the distinction between a convicted criminal, and their rights coming secondary to those of their victim. Or, someone trespassing on your property and threatening you. A properly written document would clearly prioritise your right to life, property and so forth, over theirs. Burn the HRA to the ground, and salt the earth. Replace it with a written constitution with teeth that actually protects the rights of 'everyday citizens'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man Posted February 10, 2021 Report Share Posted February 10, 2021 23 hours ago, 243deer said: we have become so 'civilised' that the victims of crimes who are subjected to a life of abject fear and misery end up seeing their tormentors treated as 'normal'. Our politicians should all hang their heads in shame for continuing to perpetrate this crime against victims. Sadly IMO, that's a true summation. All that will eventually happen will be that some law abiding finding that the law doesn't work for them and consider going off piste? 13 hours ago, Newbie to this said: No chance, the UK played a major role in most of it. Aided by the slick ones spouse? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man Posted February 10, 2021 Report Share Posted February 10, 2021 12 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said: Given the way our 'human rights'/civil liberties have been removed from us, with almost zero parliamentary oversight, the HRA is meaningless tosh. Arguing over whether Glitter or whichever child molester should get vaccinated, is nothing but a sideshow to the main event. As for 'government picking and choosing' - nope. A properly written bill of rights or constitution could clearly make the distinction between a convicted criminal, and their rights coming secondary to those of their victim. Or, someone trespassing on your property and threatening you. A properly written document would clearly prioritise your right to life, property and so forth, over theirs. Burn the HRA to the ground, and salt the earth. Replace it with a written constitution with teeth that actually protects the rights of 'everyday citizens'. Sadly, again, a constitution would give rights and that's not the aim? Removal is the game? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udderlyoffroad Posted February 10, 2021 Report Share Posted February 10, 2021 6 minutes ago, old man said: Sadly, again, a constitution would give rights and that's not the aim? Removal is the game? I don't agree; a properly written constitution would neither seek to remove nor add to them. It would prioritise them. It would also make lockdowns subject to a damn parliamentary vote! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derbyduck Posted February 10, 2021 Report Share Posted February 10, 2021 On 09/02/2021 at 09:17, snow white said: He should have had a jab when convicted of child sex then we would not be talking about him now This . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloyd90 Posted February 10, 2021 Report Share Posted February 10, 2021 1 hour ago, discobob said: This. The HRA now is actually being used to suppress the majority by a lot of militant minorities and the silent majority are terrified of getting done for breaching someone's rights inadvertently and this gives the minorities the upper hand. Yes - minorities do need to be protected - but this has gone way above and beyond 😞 Suppress the majority? How so? You know that the HRA only applies to Government and not private companies or individuals? 1 hour ago, udderlyoffroad said: Given the way our 'human rights'/civil liberties have been removed from us, with almost zero parliamentary oversight, the HRA is meaningless tosh. Eh? If you read the articles of the HRA you might recall that there is a legal exemption legally allowing the Government to restrict the liberty of citizens for public health protection, you know such as a world wide pandemic ... Whether they have gone about it the exact correct way Im not sure 🤔 46 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said: I don't agree; a properly written constitution would neither seek to remove nor add to them. It would prioritise them. It would also make lockdowns subject to a damn parliamentary vote! You think if given the vote the MP‘s would not bother with lockdown? Starmer and his complainers will just criticise but if they had to vote on it would do exactly what Johnson is already doing. It would be better if they had a vote because then they couldn’t point fingers and pretend they had a magical answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udderlyoffroad Posted February 10, 2021 Report Share Posted February 10, 2021 8 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said: If you read the articles of the HRA you might recall that there is a legal exemption legally allowing the Government to restrict the liberty of citizens for public health protection, you know such as a world wide pandemic ... Temporarily, with a clear end date and/or metric for lifting of these restrictions. 10 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said: Whether they have gone about it the exact correct way Im not sure 🤔 Absolutely, vehemently, firmly, no. No, they have not gone about it in the correct way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discobob Posted February 10, 2021 Report Share Posted February 10, 2021 4 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said: Suppress the majority? How so? You know that the HRA only applies to Government and not private companies or individuals? It just seems that way nowadays - the rights of a minority outweigh the rights of the majority - have a look at Amazon for the book "bl@ck jokes about white folks" - Allowed to get away with it - imagine if it was the other way. In the Universities Men can go into womens toilets as long as they identify as "female". In fact - they are turning on themselves when a woman of colour complains about another woman of colour who got the role above her because she (the one who go the role) isn't coloured enough!! It might apply only to Governments but then the Governments set the tone for everything else and pass laws or set tones or whatever based on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloyd90 Posted February 10, 2021 Report Share Posted February 10, 2021 1 minute ago, discobob said: It just seems that way nowadays - the rights of a minority outweigh the rights of the majority - have a look at Amazon for the book "bl@ck jokes about white folks" - Allowed to get away with it - imagine if it was the other way. In the Universities Men can go into womens toilets as long as they identify as "female". In fact - they are turning on themselves when a woman of colour complains about another woman of colour who got the role above her because she (the one who go the role) isn't coloured enough!! It might apply only to Governments but then the Governments set the tone for everything else and pass laws or set tones or whatever based on it. Im pretty sure none of what you just wrote has any direct link to the piece of legislation ‘The Human Rights Act’. People set the tone through popular demand. 5 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said: Temporarily, with a clear end date and/or metric for lifting of these restrictions. Absolutely, vehemently, firmly, no. No, they have not gone about it in the correct way. If only they had a crystal ball 🤷♂️ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
discobob Posted February 10, 2021 Report Share Posted February 10, 2021 Just now, Lloyd90 said: People set the tone through popular demand. No they don't - the militant minority set the tone - fully supported by "their rights" - say anything against it and you are labelled by any number of derogatory terms - which the majority are not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udderlyoffroad Posted February 10, 2021 Report Share Posted February 10, 2021 1 minute ago, Lloyd90 said: People set the tone through popular demand. The courts 'set the tone' through case law. 2 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said: If only they had a crystal ball 🤷♂️ You don't need a crystal ball to look backwards in history Lloyd. Removal of fundamental freedoms - such as freedom of assembly - always ends badly. Godwin and his law springs to mind... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lloyd90 Posted February 10, 2021 Report Share Posted February 10, 2021 27 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said: The courts 'set the tone' through case law. And who brings the cases? 27 minutes ago, udderlyoffroad said: You don't need a crystal ball to look backwards in history Lloyd. Removal of fundamental freedoms - such as freedom of assembly - always ends badly. Godwin and his law springs to mind... Removal of right to assembly for certain things ... last time we had a pandemic people didn’t all have a get together did they?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
udderlyoffroad Posted February 10, 2021 Report Share Posted February 10, 2021 2 minutes ago, Lloyd90 said: And who brings the cases? Law firms who seemingly are happy to work pro bono when there's an opportunity for publicity and screwing the government (read tax payer, i.e. you and me) over...Wild Justice's preferred parasites Leigh Day spring to mind.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man Posted February 10, 2021 Report Share Posted February 10, 2021 1 hour ago, udderlyoffroad said: I don't agree; a properly written constitution would neither seek to remove nor add to them. It would prioritise them. It would also make lockdowns subject to a damn parliamentary vote! I don't agree, we at present seem far away from where we should be to obtain a a fair minded properly written constitution? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.