Human rights?

  dwaynedibbly 14:53 29 Jun 2007

click here

Perhaps Liberty should have stopped and asked themselves on this occasion. Are we protecting a human right here or merely trying to help a guy get off with a speeding fine.

The chap in question obviously had second thoughts about paying the fine, getting points etc. This is yet another example of abuse of the human rights act. Which detracts from the acts value to one and all, and in the end, makes a mockery of it.

That aside, 47 in a 30mph, he should be sent on a compulsory driving re-test.

  Quickbeam 15:37 29 Jun 2007

At the other end of the scale, a friend of mine who works with street-lighting with an assistant, and both drive the same van during the working day, have been getting excessive pressure from the police to get one of them to admit a speeding offence.

After repeated requests to have a copy of the photo produced, they are still being hounded to make one of them plead guilty.

Now, if you genuinely don't know who committed the offence, and the photo evidence can't prove the guilty party, (assumed as no copy has been produced after nearly 3 months) then it is an injustice to accept any plea from either party. Yet the police seem quite happy to accept an injustice, to tie up loose ends.

  Teaboy 17:31 29 Jun 2007

I do have to point out that their case was not that the camera was infringing their human rights, but that the 300 year old "right of silence" was being infringed. That in effect the police were asking them to admit an offence; this right not enjoyed in many places, globally.

  dwaynedibbly 18:18 29 Jun 2007

Whilst it is true that a detained person should exercise their right to silence, until they have taken legal advice. That right to be silent and not incriminate oneself, can and does backfire on the individual, if it is used as a means to manipulate the legal system and evade justice.
Hence the wording of the Police caution on arrest."You do not have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you fail to mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say will be given in evidence."

  Forum Editor 18:24 29 Jun 2007

It must be pretty obvious to any reasonable person that these two were trying to be clever.

The court saw through their silly ploy, and justice has been done.

  p;3 19:01 29 Jun 2007

if memory serves, if you decline to name the driver , the car OWNER ( registered owner)will be held accountable ; someone will now delight to prove me wrong!!

  Forum Editor 19:21 29 Jun 2007

I'm not sure why you think someone would 'delight' in telling you, but anyway.......

All motorists are under an obligation to tell the police who was driving their car at the time of an offence. If, however, a car owner can prove that he/she did not know who was driving at the time, or can demonstrate that he/she could not be expected to know, there will be no prosecution.

  Totally-braindead 20:26 29 Jun 2007

I hope they had to pay the court costs themselves, probably didn't but it would have taught them a lesson. Just two people who think that they might wangle a way out of it.
And I agree from the speed 47 mph in a 30 mph zone he should have to resit his test, he got off light with the 3 points in my opinion.

  laurie53 07:23 30 Jun 2007

I see that a slaughter order against a bull with TB in Wales is now being appealed under human rights legislation!

How long before somebody decides that cauliflowers have human rights and we can't eat them?


  Forum Editor 07:57 30 Jun 2007

You raise an interesting point. In my view, if you decide to join an organised group of any description you must expect to abide by the established rules governing the conduct of people within the group.

You have a choice, after all; accept the rules and join, or don't accept them and don't join. A requirement of such a system must be that the rules are published, and that you have the opportunity to inspect them before deciding whether or not to join the group. We do this all the time on the internet. I designed a site for an industry which wanted senior executives in the various companies within that industry to be able to exchange information via a private forum. I put this disclaimer right next to the sign-up form: 'Please read the terms and conditions of forum membership, and tick here before proceeding. By ticking the box you signify your acceptance of the terms and your willingness to abide by them.'

I don't see why a school shouldn't be able to do the same. It wouldn't in itself be an infringement of a human right as far as I can see. The problem would arise when a rule prohibiting the wearing of a religious symbol became universally adopted. That would mean that parents who felt unable to accept the rule were excluded from sending their child to any school, and I doubt that society would find that acceptable.

  DrScott 09:09 30 Jun 2007

are a bit trickier. Children have to go to school by law, and if you're not fee paying, children have to go to a school in their catchment area. This is one area where the government has not gone all out for 'choice'.

Of course my wife tells me that when she was at school they campaigned really hard to have V necked jumpers instead of round necked. A few years later the seniors were again campaigning very hard to have round necked jumpers instead of V necked.

Kids want to fight the system. The laws on Human Rights enable them to take this to a higher level than just the headteacher.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Samsung Galaxy S9 review

Wacom Cintiq Pro 24 and 32 review – hands-on

When is the next Apple event?

Gmail : comment annuler l’envoi d’un e-mail ?