O/T Are the Supreme Court joking?
Wed Feb 16, 2011 10:14 pm
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12476979
So paedos and rapists, the worst of an evil bunch, will have the right to appeal against being on the sex offenders register.
One of the test cases was a boy of 11 who raped someones 6 year old son. He complained that he couldn't no things like play rugby and go on holiday because of him being on the register. Aw diddums.
This is a disgrace. What are some people thinking? I know there are due processes in politics and justice, but surely this is over stepping the mark. It's not even the european court of human rights now, it's our supreme court
So paedos and rapists, the worst of an evil bunch, will have the right to appeal against being on the sex offenders register.
One of the test cases was a boy of 11 who raped someones 6 year old son. He complained that he couldn't no things like play rugby and go on holiday because of him being on the register. Aw diddums.
This is a disgrace. What are some people thinking? I know there are due processes in politics and justice, but surely this is over stepping the mark. It's not even the european court of human rights now, it's our supreme court
Re: O/T Are the Supreme Court joking?
Wed Feb 16, 2011 10:27 pm
Apparently they HAVE TO because they're breeching human rights laws if they don't do this.
But I'm sorry, if you've done something BAD ENOUGH to be on the Sex Offenders Register in the first place, you don't deserve any 'human rights'...little bit controvertial I know but thats exactly how I feel.
For example, if their names not on the register, they will be allowed to have their own child and take it home with minimal social services interference. What's to stop them abusing that child?
Restrictions are there for a reason - to protect the public, and this change would be endangering so many people it's unreal
But I'm sorry, if you've done something BAD ENOUGH to be on the Sex Offenders Register in the first place, you don't deserve any 'human rights'...little bit controvertial I know but thats exactly how I feel.
For example, if their names not on the register, they will be allowed to have their own child and take it home with minimal social services interference. What's to stop them abusing that child?
Restrictions are there for a reason - to protect the public, and this change would be endangering so many people it's unreal
Re: O/T Are the Supreme Court joking?
Wed Feb 16, 2011 11:30 pm
littlebluebird wrote:Apparently they HAVE TO because they're breeching human rights laws if they don't do this.
But I'm sorry, if you've done something BAD ENOUGH to be on the Sex Offenders Register in the first place, you don't deserve any 'human rights'...little bit controvertial I know but thats exactly how I feel.
For example, if their names not on the register, they will be allowed to have their own child and take it home with minimal social services interference. What's to stop them abusing that child?
Restrictions are there for a reason - to protect the public, and this change would be endangering so many people it's unreal
Well said, it's not humane so they gave up any human rights!
Re: O/T Are the Supreme Court joking?
Thu Feb 17, 2011 12:37 am
It's evident they are not joking , tho I wish they were, so go with locking these vermin up for 40 yrs minimum, then theres no need for a register , cos everyone would know where they are, and their 'human rights' would not be a problem ?
Re: O/T Are the Supreme Court joking?
Thu Feb 17, 2011 7:52 pm
That's it in a nutshell Pete. Wish these people in power understood that.