BBC.
Yes, because he has to look after his kids under joint custody he thinks he can use the HRA to prevent himself from being sent to prison for burglary. I wonder about his victims rights not to be robbed by this little shit? Will they be taken into account? Or do his rights trump theirs? I does seem that way more often than not doesn't it?A 33-year-old Nottingham burglar has appealed against his sentence, saying he needs to care for his five children.
Wayne Bishop, of Southchurch Drive, Clifton, was jailed for eight months in April at Nottingham Crown Court.
He said on five nights a week he was the sole carer for his five children, who are aged between five and 12.
His lawyer Ian Wise said the sentence violated Bishop's right to respect for family life under article eight of the Human Rights Convention."This case is of public importance and could have significant wider repercussions," Mr Wise told Mrs Justice Gloster.Bishop, of Southchurch Drive, has joint custody of his five children, aged five to 12, with his ex-partner.Mr Wise said article eight of the Human Rights Convention "enshrines the right to respect for family life and privacy".
Yes I know I've ranted on at the HRA and its misuse and abuse in the past and probably will do in the future, however that's not to say I don't think people, even criminals have rights, just that some rights aren't actually a right at all. With rights there equally should come responsibilities, if you break the law, you lose certain rights including the right to roam free and commit further crimes and also the right to respect for family life and privacy. A complex system of equal rights for all simply will not work if the villain has exactly the same rights as the victim. The only rights a villain should have are the right to a fair trial, the right to appeal and the right to be housed and fed securely and safely at her majesties pleasure. That's all the basic rights they need, the law abiding rest of us get the full package, so I hope he loses this appeal, it's a damned disgrace his legal team even went for it!
8 annotations:
(smiles) Have to say, I'm actually quite opposed to prison sentences - that opposition comes from the simple question...
If prison is a punishment, who does a prison term actually punish - the prisoner or their loved ones?
Sure, I accept that there are many and varied debates around the issue... but that's my position.
I see prison as an absolute last resort for hopeless cases and, even then, it would make me uncomfortable knowing that a prisoner's kids might end up in a state run care home and all the rest of that.
What would I do instead? Bring back flogging in a market square, in honesty. Short, sharp, shocking and to the point - but over and done with in the space of an hour or two and much cheaper for the taxpayer.
I'm fairly sure flogging isn't allowed under the HRA either.
Second time .. cut off a hand ... third time cut off the other ... should end his "career" prospects ...
@ Quiet_Man:
PMSL! Good answer!! Laughed plenty! :)
No doubt his "Legal Team" are being paid by the taxpayer.
Firstly I doubt if he keeps his offspring, we do cutting his hampton off would save us more money than chopping his hands..
The more that 'Human Wrongs' are abused the sooner it will be scrapped.
Not I fear, until it has done its job and wrecked our society.
The only rights a villain should have are the right to a fair trial, the right to appeal and the right to be turned right way up in the manacles on the wall once every half hour.
What rights does the HRA give anyone not a scrote or overpaid footy-baller? Let's say they move vile scrote in next door and the law is hapless? Why "human rights" is beyond me when this act can only be addressed by buckets full of money or legal aid.
Post a Comment