Marcel Berlins: Stop blaming the Human Rights Act

The Human Rights Act is increasingly being made a scapegoat for government incompetence, maladministration and badly drafted legislation. Take the case of Anthony Rice, the rapist who killed a woman nine months after being released on licence. From the report by the chief inspector of probation, it is clear that the fundamental mistake was letting Rice out of prison in the first place.

read the rest


Posted on May 15th, 2006 at 9:18 am

See also
BBC News: Ex-MP’s doubts over Kelly hearing
Spy Blog: Control Orders scandal - will McNulty resign ?
See Saw Marjory Straw
   
Permalink
Trackback

Subscribe By Email
Print This Post


Filed under Chicken Nuggets, Civil liberties, Human rights, UK politics
 

6 Comments

  1. Andrew Bartlett (37 comments.) on 15.05.2006 at 11:37 Permalink | Reply

    As I said in ‘more fuel for the bonfire of the liberties’, the reporting on this has been all cock-eyed.

    What it should have said was:

    “The guff about human rights is retrospective wisdom. If “the [probation] board had received “over optimistic” reports of Rice’s progress under treatment and did not have a full picture of his previous crimes” then it was not so much that the board “gave insufficient weight to the underlying nature of his risk of harm to others”, but that the board made exactly the right decision according to the information that they were presented with. There is no need to cut away our human rights, but a need to ensure more diligent and intensive reporting on the rehabilitation of prisoners.”

  2. Marcin Tustin (3 comments.) on 15.05.2006 at 11:52 Permalink | Reply

    “Appalling criminal act”, eh? This hijacking was so appalling that it involved no violence against any person, and it resulted in the majority of the passengers also claiming asylum. To describe this as appalling is to pander to the self-satisfied hypocrites who have criticised the release of these men.

  3. Marcin Tustin (3 comments.) on 15.05.2006 at 11:55 Permalink | Reply

    And another thing - there is no EU aspect to this. To withdraw from the ECHR would entail withdrawl from the Council of Europe, not the EU.

  4. sonia (1 comments.) on 15.05.2006 at 12:16 Permalink | Reply

    I know ridiculous isn’t it!

    i was thinking.. what then if the Human rights Act is repealed. aha! It would be ever so slightly difficult to point to some dodgy nation and say..ooh look at your human rights transgressions..er..why …that’s just like us..oops!

  5. Friendly Fire (32 comments.) on 15.05.2006 at 21:52 Permalink | Reply

    Interesting to see how the Afghan hunger strikers will play out in Dublin’s St Patrick Cathedral.

    We may see a trend here. Good Christians that we are.

    http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0515/asylum.html

  6. Robert on 17.05.2006 at 13:44 Permalink | Reply

    Actually, membership of the EU has an unofficial (possibly even official) requirement that the state is a signatory to the ECHR. Withdrawing from it may well lead to being kicked out of the EU.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.