VIDEO: UK plans to exempt soliders from European convention on human rights

[webfact]

 

[laislica]

About time too!

[Grouse]

Be careful.

 

Thin edge of the wedge

 

All about saving money.......

[7by7]

2 hours ago, laislica said:

About time too!

 

How so?

 

Do you wish to revert back to the days when armies wandered the countryside murdering, raping, torturing and pillaging at will?

 

I thought we were supposed to be a civilised nation.

 

Plan for UK military to opt out of European convention on human rights is one article on the main reason for this plan, to stop vexatious claims.

Quote

“If ministers held our troops in the high regard they claim, they would not do them the disrespect of implying they can’t abide by human rights standards. For a supposedly civilised nation, this is a pernicious and retrograde step.”

 

The way to cut the number of vexatious claims is not, I believe, to exempt those few members of the British armed forces who abuse human rights from punishment, but to make the claimant, or preferably the lawyers who search for and encourage vexatious claimants, pay the MoD's costs if they lose.

 

But when you consider the large percentage of claims which are settled out of court, you have to wonder how many are vexatious. From the above article Rev Nicholas Mercer, formerly a lieutenant colonel and senior legal military adviser to the 1st Armoured Division, says

Quote

Anyone who has been involved in litigation with the MoD knows that it will pay up only if a case is overwhelming or the ministry wants to cover something up.”

 

[laislica]

22 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

 

How so?

 

Do you wish to revert back to the days when armies wandered the countryside murdering, raping, torturing and pillaging at will?

 

I thought we were supposed to be a civilised nation.

 

Plan for UK military to opt out of European convention on human rights is one article on the main reason for this plan, to stop vexatious claims.

 

The way to cut the number of vexatious claims is not, I believe, to exempt those few members of the British armed forces who abuse human rights from punishment, but to make the claimant, or preferably the lawyers who search for and encourage vexatious claimants, pay the MoD's costs if they lose.

 

But when you consider the large percentage of claims which are settled out of court, you have to wonder how many are vexatious. From the above article Rev Nicholas Mercer, formerly a lieutenant colonel and senior legal military adviser to the 1st Armoured Division, says

 

How so?

 

Well if you send soldiers into a war zone to fight, kill and die on your behalf you should train them and monitor and control their actions and be responsible for those actions.

If we were truly civilised, we would not need soldiers and there would be no consequences to consider.

 

You say:- But when you consider the large percentage of claims which are settled out of court, you have to wonder how many are vexatious.

 

IMO, this has become a litigious world, mostly driven by greed and not common sense.

Dare to speak the truth publicly in Thailand and see if you are then sued for libel, even though it is all truthful,

the likelihood is that your truth would lose and their lies would win.....

 

You thought we were supposed to be a civilised nation.

Is it civilised to have drones controlled from another country, regularly killing "Suspects"?

Even if a specific country does not use that technology, they generally support  it's use.

No country is civilised.

Just sayin, IMO

PS

You mention the days when armies wandered the countryside murdering, raping, torturing and pillaging at will?

Isn't that what ISIS are doing in Syria and other countries?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 5, 2016 by laislica
PS

[7by7]

35 minutes ago, laislica said:

How so?

 

Well if you send soldiers into a war zone to fight, kill and die on your behalf you should train them and monitor and control their actions and be responsible for those action

Indeed.

 

So why did you say

3 hours ago, laislica said:

About time too!

to the news that the government plans to opt out of one of, probably the main, control?

 

Yes, the world is becoming more litigious, as the large number of adverts of the "Where's there's blame, there's a claim" type from solicitors on British TV. Though what Thailand's tough libel laws have to do with the topic, only you know.

 

The use of drones is very controversial; have you seen Eye in the Sky?

 

42 minutes ago, laislica said:

You mention the days when armies wandered the countryside murdering, raping, torturing and pillaging at will?

Isn't that what ISIS are doing in Syria and other countries?

What I actually posted was

 

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

Do you wish to revert back to the days when armies wandered the countryside murdering, raping, torturing and pillaging at will?

 

I thought we were supposed to be a civilised nation.

You may consider ISIS and their ilk to be civilised; I do not!

 

I hope that the British army never sink to that level of routine depravity.

[laislica]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

2 hours ago, laislica said:

How so?

 

Well if you send soldiers into a war zone to fight, kill and die on your behalf you should train them and monitor and control their actions and be responsible for those action

Indeed.

 

So why did you say

5 hours ago, laislica said:

About time too!

to the news that the government plans to opt out of one of, probably the main, control?

 

Yes, the world is becoming more litigious, as the large number of adverts of the "Where's there's blame, there's a claim" type from solicitors on British TV. Though what Thailand's tough libel laws have to do with the topic, only you know.

 

The use of drones is very controversial; have you seen Eye in the Sky?

 

2 hours ago, laislica said:

You mention the days when armies wandered the countryside murdering, raping, torturing and pillaging at will?

Isn't that what ISIS are doing in Syria and other countries?

What I actually posted was

 

2 hours ago, 7by7 said:

Do you wish to revert back to the days when armies wandered the countryside murdering, raping, torturing and pillaging at will?

 

I thought we were supposed to be a civilised nation.

You may consider ISIS and their ilk to be civilised; I do not!

 

I hope that the British army never sink to that level of routine depravity.

 

I'm sorry that you feel that the main control is litigation - AFTER the fact.

I feel that the control should be exercised on the ground where the fighting is actually taking place.

Litigation is feedback, not control.

 

I have not see Eye in the Sky but I've seen enough glorifying video clips on social media and even in movies to enable me to think that the countries employing drones have already sunk to the rape and pillage level.

 

My reference to ISIS was to point out that they have sunk to the lowest levels and I do not consider them to be anything other than Barbaric.

 

I agree with your hope that the British army never sink to that level of routine depravity.

 

I am pleased to be in my mid seventies so, statistically, I shall not have to contend with this dreadful state of affairs for that much longer.....

I just missed conscription but much later, after qualifying, I worked with the Air Force, the Army and Navy in several roles from teaching, living and working with them, to contract implementation.

I have an idea of what the British armed forces are capable of and how they train.

However, in a situation where opposing forces are bearing down on you, what would you do?

Shoot or be shot?

If you are wondering if you may go to prison, as has recently happened, there may be no litigation because you could be dead rather than the opposer?

 

It is not a cut and dried, black or white situation.

I would agree with litigation as long as the lawyers and politicians were at the war site at the time, not just sat behind a desk and waiting to make a financial killing because a soldier did his job.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[7by7]

19 hours ago, laislica said:

 

I'm sorry that you feel that the main control is litigation - AFTER the fact.

I feel that the control should be exercised on the ground where the fighting is actually taking place.

Litigation is feedback, not control.

 

 I did not mean that litigation after the fact is the main form of control; what I meant was that the provisions of the ECHR the government plan to opt out of are one of the main forms of control.

 

Something I thought was obvious, but it seems not.

 

19 hours ago, laislica said:

I have not see Eye in the Sky but I've seen enough glorifying video clips on social media and even in movies to enable me to think that the countries employing drones have already sunk to the rape and pillage level.

Maybe you should see Eye in the Sky. It is a work of fiction, but does examine the morality of using drones.

 

There are many articles on this; some for, some against, some neutral. One example being The Morality of Drones

Quote

Proponents argue that drones are a “smart bombing” system and therefore more exact and less prone to human error. However, countless civilians have been killed in drone strikes usually as the result of collateral damage.

But drones and their use are not the subject of this topic; if you wish to discuss them further I suggest starting a topic in Outside the Box.

 

19 hours ago, laislica said:

 

However, in a situation where opposing forces are bearing down on you, what would you do?

Shoot or be shot?

If you are wondering if you may go to prison, as has recently happened, there may be no litigation because you could be dead rather than the oppose?

 

It is not a cut and dried, black or white situation.

I would agree with litigation as long as the lawyers and politicians were at the war site at the time, not just sat behind a desk and waiting to make a financial killing because a soldier did his job.

We are not talking about battle situations here, certainly not about a soldier defending himself. The parts the government want to opt out of are about the mistreatment and unlawful killing of prisoners and civilians suspected of cooperating with the enemy.

 

Something which the majority of the members of the UK's armed forces would no more contemplate than you and I; but it does, unfortunately, happen. Not just in war zones, either. Remember the culture of bullying, even alleged rapes, of recruits at training centres such as Deepcut and Pirbright?

 

The government are spinning this to make it seem that they are protecting innocent soldiers and saving the MoD millions of pounds. But if the soldiers are innocent, they don't need this 'protection' and they and the Mod wont be sued; or if they are will win the case. It is only in cases where a soldier, or other member of the armed forces, has acted incorrectly, even unlawfully, that litigation would, and should, succeed.

 

I am against the litigious nature of modern society; far too often in all walks of life people do make vexatious claims in the hope that they may win; spurred on by the 'no win, no fee' lawyers.

 

But sometimes litigation is the only way to get justice; as shown by the success of the Omagh bombing families in their civil case against the real IRA members responsible for the atrocity after criminal cases were dropped due to lack of evidence. (I am not saying that the British army is like the Real IRA, far from it; merely using a prominent example of how a civil case can bring justice after the criminal justice system has, for one reason or another, failed victims and their families.)

 

As I said before, it is not opting out of the ECHR which will bring an end to vexatious claims; it is properly regulating and scrutinising those claims to bring an end to abuses, even illegalities, such as those allegedly carried out by Phil Shiner: Top lawyer facing criminal inquiry over 'bribes' paid to Iraqis bringing abuse claims against British troops

 

 

[Bob9]

Great to see - yet again UK is leading the way - and it is only just the beginning.  

 

The western world is starting down the path of rejecting the global enforcement of human rights laws and conventions.  The reason is simple  - they are being abused by too many people for both personal and political gain. That millions of illegal immigrants are arriving on our shores and demanding refugee status and rights, is but a small part of this global liberalism that has proven to be a disaster to the west. That a soldier can be taken to court for firing at and killing a terrorist, without first proving he/she was a terrorist, is just utterly ridiculous.  

 

The UK has existing laws that adequately provide against abuses committed by their troops, but more importantly these laws are based upon 100s of years of legal precedence and standing. The laws created by the eurocrats in the EU are open to misuse and false claims.  About time the western world accepted that the EU and UN are incompetent when it comes to making laws and conventions. That is why USA refused to accept them in the first place, and they always will.

 

 

[7by7]

Please do some research and get your facts right before you post. By all means express an opinion, but when you get simple facts wrong it is difficult to take you seriously!

 

Neither the European Convention on Human Rights nor the Council of Europe are anything to do with the EU.

 

The Council of Europe was established after World War II following calls in 1946 from Winston Churchill for a kind of "United States of Europe;" something he first referred to as early as 1943.

 

The CoE was established by the Treaty of London in 1949. It currently has 47 members.

 

The ECHR was established in 1950; it has been signed by all 47 members of the CoE.

 

The EEC was established by the Treaty of Rome in 1958, it became the European Union following the Maastricht Treaty in 1993. It currently has 28 members, including the UK, all of whom are also members of the CoE.

 

The European Court of Justice is the highest court in the EU and rules on matters of EU law. It is not the same as the European Court of Human Rights, which was established in 1959 and rules on matters relating to alleged abuses of the ECHR.

 

Many of the existing laws the UK already has which 'adequately provide against abuses by it's troops' are based on the ECHR; it is these laws which the current government want to abandon by opting out of the relevant parts of the convention.

 

The government have not, to the best of my knowledge, announced any plans to opt out of the parts of the ECHR which protects the rights of refugees. The proposed opt out by the government of EU refugee quotas is, again, nothing to do with the ECHR and is about numbers, not rights.

 

 

Edited October 6, 2016 by 7by7

[7by7]

I've not been able to ascertain which Article(s) of the convention the government are planning to opt out of; but maybe it's those covered in Article 15

Quote

ARTICLE 15

Derogation in time of emergency

1. In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation any High Contracting Party may take measures derogating from its obligations under this Convention to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation, provided that such measures are not inconsistent with its other obligations under international law.

2. No derogation from Article 2, except in respect of deaths resulting from lawful acts of war*, or from Articles 3, 4  (paragraph 1) and 7 shall be made under this provision.

3. Any High Contracting Party availing itself of this right of derogation shall keep the Secretary General of the Council of Europe fully informed of the measures which it has taken and the reasons therefor. It shall also inform the Secretary General of the Council of Europe when such measures have ceased to operate and the provisions of the Convention are again being fully executed.

*Highlighted by 7by7 for laislica's benefit who seems to think the convention prevents soldiers in a war zone defending themselves!

Edited October 6, 2016 by 7by7

[HauptmannUK]

Sad that there is so much ignorance and misunderstanding around anything to do with Europe.  I suspect it is due to years of exposure to propaganda from the likes of the Daily Mail, Sun etc newspapers.

The ECHR is nothing to do with the EU - it was actually established following British lobbying so that what were essentially British values could be enforced across Europe and deter future human rights violations of the type that were witnessed during WWII.  The British MP David Maxwell Fyffe was responsible for drafting the Convention.  So sad that the UK is now wanting to opt out of it.  Presumably based on the belief that the British are incapable of human rights abuses.