Very interesting, I dont know i'm correct, but i only picked up 7 points there, he skips from 4 to 6 with no obvious 5th inbetween! I also dont get why Lord Bingham believes that a terroist who was complicit in torture or fully willing to kill and inflict harm on others and infringe their right to personal saftey and freedom from inhuman treatment, should then be given the very right he sought to ignore and abuse. In my eyes, the act of terrorism should revoke the right, and allow UK to deport.
He did skip but then went back to human rights, so I think #4 was exercise of public powers, #5 was human rights #6 was access to the courts, and #7 was right to a fair trial.
@pokerrich9 I hardly think that parliamentary sovereignty is stood by so stringently, in fact, id say it has little weight behind it looking at the country's recent history, and Dicey held that principle above the rule of law. That or the HRA needs a change. We've been too tolerant, terrorists that face deportation simply cry torture and they know that we are then powerless to remove them our own country - despite the risk. What follows is years of costly investigation and counter litigation.
are these people speaking to humans-- all variety---how do you become human?- historically many groups have not been viewed as complete humans-how long can one stay in that state of human?--at one point do humans get rights?---where and who or what gives the rights---are those rights free? do all humans agree with the rights that are assigned? can you buy the rights, a lot of it. who secures that right can humans trust them. to determine who is human and the associated rights is a God like position, many are rushing and hoping to occupy the "vacant' spot.
I'm just about to start my Law degree and am enjoying this content, anyone agree?
Same!! I completely agree.
Very interesting, I dont know i'm correct, but i only picked up 7 points there, he skips from 4 to 6 with no obvious 5th inbetween!
I also dont get why Lord Bingham believes that a terroist who was complicit in torture or fully willing to kill and inflict harm on others and infringe their right to personal saftey and freedom from inhuman treatment, should then be given the very right he sought to ignore and abuse. In my eyes, the act of terrorism should revoke the right, and allow UK to deport.
I found he skipped from 4 to 6 as well. Unless human rights was separate from a right to a fair trial.
He did skip but then went back to human rights, so I think #4 was exercise of public powers, #5 was human rights #6 was access to the courts, and #7 was right to a fair trial.
Lord Bingham dies on 9/11 (2010) what a coincidence!!
may he rest in paradise!!!!!!!!!!!
died 9/11 (2010)
@pokerrich9 I hardly think that parliamentary sovereignty is stood by so stringently, in fact, id say it has little weight behind it looking at the country's recent history, and Dicey held that principle above the rule of law. That or the HRA needs a change. We've been too tolerant, terrorists that face deportation simply cry torture and they know that we are then powerless to remove them our own country - despite the risk. What follows is years of costly investigation and counter litigation.
are these people speaking to humans-- all variety---how do you become human?- historically many groups have not been viewed as complete humans-how long can one stay in that state of human?--at one point do humans get rights?---where and who or what gives the rights---are those rights free? do all humans agree with the rights that are assigned? can you buy the rights, a lot of it. who secures that right can humans trust them. to determine who is human and the associated rights is a God like position, many are rushing and hoping to occupy the "vacant' spot.
So then are all commercial courts illegal then?🤔🤔