Blinkin' Human Rights Act

[Peoplesoft bloke]

I mean how can this be right?

People expecting the fash to investigate stuff - where will it end? It's PC gone mad.

[Spacecadet]

I mean how can this be right?

People expecting the fash to investigate stuff - where will it end? It's PC's gone mad.

I believe that more than 1 police constable was involved

[NotAllThere]

PCs

[Pogle]

'effing disgrace

[lilelvis2000]

Proves that incompetence and corruption are rife within the Police. And the diciplinary action? Probably just a wedgie from the chief.

[Paddy]

I mean how can this be right?

People expecting the fash to investigate stuff - where will it end? It's PC gone mad.

Blinkin' Human Rights Act

This has nothing to do with The Human Rights Act. It is a civil case and in was settled out of court to save costs.

Anybody can apply to the court to sue anybody for anything. How far it gets, or even if the case is stuck out depends on the merits of the case. If people didn’t sue the police; the police would be even more complacent that what they are now.

Without the Human Rights Act, a clamant who has lost a case in the High Court could take it to the European Court of Human Rights if it was appropriate. (There is very strict criteria before one can do so and it is very rare )

The Human Rights Act makes the process much shorter because most matters can now be dealt with by the UK courts.

The press loves to have a go at the Human Rights Act, but if anyone has tried to litigate against a government body they have found that it is an endless up hill struggle.

I will give an example of an incident that happened to my next door neighbour. Two trespassers attacked her. She was beaten and bruised but managed to call the police. The male trespassers claimed that she had attacked them first so they said there was no case to answer and advised the trespassers to sue her! She spent £10 on perusing damages from the police before running out of money. This is the norm, but this type of case does not get published, only when somebody gets compensation it becomes news-worthy.

All you post does it to proved that the media propaganda machine works fine and there are enough people willing to believe it.

[TinTrump]

Ahem, Paddy: Peoplesoft bloke was being sarcastic. He didn't use the old , that's all.

[EternalOptimist]

This has nothing to do with The Human Rights Act. It is a civil case and in was settled out of court to save costs.

Anybody can apply to the court to sue anybody for anything. How far it gets, or even if the case is stuck out depends on the merits of the case. If people didn’t sue the police; the police would be even more complacent that what they are now.

Without the Human Rights Act, a clamant who has lost a case in the High Court could take it to the European Court of Human Rights if it was appropriate. (There is very strict criteria before one can do so and it is very rare )

The Human Rights Act makes the process much shorter because most matters can now be dealt with by the UK courts.

The press loves to have a go at the Human Rights Act, but if anyone has tried to litigate against a government body they have found that it is an endless up hill struggle.

I will give an example of an incident that happened to my next door neighbour. Two trespassers attacked her. She was beaten and bruised but managed to call the police. The male trespassers claimed that she had attacked them first so they said there was no case to answer and advised the trespassers to sue her! She spent £10 on perusing damages from the police before running out of money. This is the norm, but this type of case does not get published, only when somebody gets compensation it becomes news-worthy.

All you post does it to proved that the media propaganda machine works fine and there are enough people willing to believe it.

wrong wrong wrong.

I took Peoplesofts post to be a self-deprecating and sardonic look at THRA. As if to say, 'here is me slagging off THRA for years, and now it turns out to be the only way this poor woman was going to get some justice' PeoplesoftBloke will correct me if I talk bollks

The case does have some relevance to the act because the action being brought was under the 'degrading treatment by the state' bit, plod tried to settle for 1500, but she declined then accepted 3500.

[Paddy]

wrong wrong wrong.

I took Peoplesofts post to be a self-deprecating and sardonic look at THRA. As if to say, 'here is me slagging off THRA for years, and now it turns out to be the only way this poor woman was going to get some justice' PeoplesoftBloke will correct me if I talk bollks

The case does have some relevance to the act because the action being brought was under the 'degrading treatment by the state' bit, plod tried to settle for 1500, but she declined then accepted 3500.

Point taken.