20:51  |  10 December 11
Members Login:
Username:    Password:      

Chamber of Debate

DEMOCRACY - Human Rights Act





The mother, who has given birth again while in jail, faces a maximum of 14 years when she is sentenced next month for allowing the death of a child.

But as she has already spent time in prison on remand, she could be free in as little as five years. When her time for release approaches, her solicitors will apply to the High Court to rule that her new identity and whereabouts may not be revealed in the media. They will have to show explicit, realistic death threats for the application to succeed. But with the obvious anger in the messages circulating on the internet, this should hardly be a problem.

One said of the convicted three: 'Put them out of their misery. Just kill them, they don't deserve to live. When they get out we will be the ones paying for them, they won't be able to work, they will have new names, protection from the Old Bill, a new place to live, why should they get this?'

Another asked: 'How can anyone do this to anyone, let alone an innocent little child? Hanging them is too easy for them - they should be tortured exactly how Baby P was but worse!!'

The basis of the application by Baby P's mother for lifelong anonymity would be Article 2 of the Human Rights Act, the right to life, and Article 8, the right to privacy and family life. These will have to be balanced against Article 10, the right to free speech and the principle of openness in legal proceedings, said Niri Shan, of Taylor Wessing solicitors.
Vote: Should the Human Rights Act be repealed to avoid the situation of taxpayers being made to pay for the protection of Baby P's mother?

Our Unique Parallel Polling System

OMOV (One Member One Vote)
Yes 88% No 12%
Yes No    
OMMV (One Member Multiple Votes)
Yes 100% No 0%
Yes No         AAA Awarded members only.

Members Comments

MGN2009 3-Jun-2009 23:7
The HRA should be amended to say that if you take a human life by murder then you lose your human rights
dignitas 16-Dec-2008 0:1
no i dont think the HRA should be repealed, despite its bad reputation the HRA has been created to protect everyone.
What should be done is a serious (i loath to say it..) 'commitee' should be set up that includes all Law Lords, Home office, Lawyers, intellectuals and members of the public to actually sit down and investigate ways that allow the HRA to do its job of protecting the citizens of a state whilst at the same time allowing the rule of Law and Justice to be unhindered by the mis-use of the HRA by criminals and unscrupulous defence lawyers.
Anselm 1-Dec-2008 17:48
The Human Rights Act is a total travesty, it doesn't protect our rights; in fact the total opposite - it gives criminals rights they shouldn't have to remove our rights. If there's a grave threat to her life, keep her in jail for the full sentence - she shouldn't be out in 5 years - this woman has seen her baby tortured to death and done nothing! She took the right of life of that innocent baby away, why then should the taxpayer fund her right to life? It's about time we had a new Bill of Rights that protects the law-abiding citizen, not the criminal - and something that protects our democracy from Nu Labour's police state being forced upon us.
LeeSouthend 1-Dec-2008 17:33
There were plenty of reasions to repeal the human rights law before the baby P case.
All comments are subject to approval.

Tool Box

My Profile
 - My Profile
 - Edit My Profile
 - Reset My Password
My Mailbox
 - Inbox
 - Sent
 - Draft
 - Trash
Search Options
 - List of Correspondents
 - Blocked Members
 - Refer a Friend
 - Chamber of Debate
 - Classified Advertisements
 - Events
 - AAA Award