Tuesday, 8 March 2011


I tend to get a bit cross with people when they get shirty about human rights. Of course there are a shed load of people who abuse the precious rights which we in Europe take for granted, but as those who either remember the war or have studied it know, when a population is denied their human rights, they can sometimes find themselves in a nasty situation, or even a gas chamber.

Oh that couldn’t happen to us, I hear you say. We’re British!

Uh huh? Well, I say, if you’re quite confident that the likes of Blair or Brown or Cameron wouldn’t whip your rights out from under you feet quicker than you could say old age pension, then fine. Personally I wouldn’t trust any of them an inch.

As for the Human Rights legislation, well, like any legislation for the good of people, it is capable of being misused and abused by those out to make a quick buck for themselves. Usually lawyers, because many of the muppets that get into taking the mick with these laws would have difficulty putting on their own socks in the morning. It is the” no win; no fee” lawyers I blame and the sooner that nonsense is made illegal the better. If you think you’ve been wronged, put your money where your mouth is!

Anyway... this is a lovely example of attempted abuse, possibly thought out by the complainant himself this time.

It concerns Fife landowner, Duncan Black, aged 48, of Cupar, who was caught by police drink driving. Black argued that police had breached his human rights by asking if he was prepared to take a breath test at the roadside without a lawyer being present. He claimed that he should have been entitled to legal advice, as an extension of the recent Cadder ruling, where London’s horrifically expensive supreme court ruled that the Scottish way of allowing police 6 hours with prisoners before lawyers were called, was illegal (an argument I agree with).

The sheriff, however, rejected the argument saying:

"It is clear from the decision in Cadder that it is aimed at interviews
where there is an interrogation and a question and answer session designed to elicit evidence which may be incriminating on its own or to get other evidence," the sheriff said. "That's not what happened here.

"I accept it may be said the accused is disadvantaged by not having a solicitor present, particularly when asked whether to have a blood or urine sample, but the question is straightforward and the accused can say yes or no."

Black was found guilty of drunk driving, fined £900 and banned for a year, a rather steep fine for one with a low level of alcohol in his breath (44mics.). So be warned. The sheriff may have handed down a harsher than normal sentence because he found the human rights argument a waste of the court’s time.

Pics: (1) Blowing in the bag. This of course is not Black. Picturing him blowing in his bag and kissing adieu to £900, and his licence, in the sure and certain knowledge that his next insurance bill will be a whopper, would indeed be a gross breach of his human rights. (2) The Supreme Court. America has one and, as my granny would say, Blair” couldnae see green cheese but his een reelt”...so they had to have one too, and now it appears that Scots law may be decided by this court! The shame of it. I say "expensive" in the story, because they used to use rooms in the House of lords, but when Blair set this up it moved to another building and cost a king’s ransom to fit out. Nothing but the best for the nobs! (3) Perth Sheriff Court. Another lovely building in a beautiful city.


  1. He'll have been thinking that as a landowner he was above the law. You know what they say about Fifers. :)

  2. "Fly", I think is the word Subrosa. It was a good try but it was of course a waste of the court's time. You can't reasonably expect the police to send their car back to HQ to pick up the duty solicitor, which in any case would not be good enough for the likes of this fine fellow I expect.

    Drink Driving is such an incredibly selfish crime. It seems to say "I care more about having a drink than I do about the safety of other people on the road". But as you say SR, he probably thinks he doesn't have to bother will all this nonsense because he's a landowner.

    I wonder how this guy would have felt if, over his kippers and kedgeree he had read that some 17 year old ne'er do well from a sink estate had pulled this one...

  3. I agree with you on this Tris, it isn't so much a problem with the ECHR (indeed having it is very important). It is much more to do with those blood sucking lawyers :)

    Reminds me of a rather good joke actually ... but much to explicit for Munguin's Republic to read ...

  4. Yes Dean. I just had a rant over at your place about that.

    Im glad we agree.

  5. I don’t suppose it will be long before the Tories do away with human rights altogether, it seems that every time they are asserted it makes David Cameron physically sick, and we can’t have that now can we? So looks like they will un-sign the European Convention and instead give us an adjusted English version with all the actual rights filtered out!

    Bit of a bummer for wee Wullie as it won’t be so easy to lecture the rest of the world on human rights when the UK is the only country to withdraw from an international agreement over them because it was inconvenient. I can just see President Hu pointing that out to Wullie in his inscrutable oriental way, thus forestalling the usual tedious digressions concerning human rights in China.

    I think that people who waste the courts time by clearly chancing their arm and bringing vexatious cases should be severely punished. The trouble is, of course, that is something the great and good do when they get into hot water and nobody bats an eye, most famously those MPs who did not want to either stand in the dock or even be tried by a normal court sighting a ludicrous ancient bill of their own rights.

  6. Well once again Munguin, I'm not sure that the original Bill of Rights was ridiculous; it was just these idiots' interpretation of it... ie that they could steal and fiddle and then not have to stand in a court before ordinary criminals' justices and face the facts.

    The fact that they requested thet THEY should not have to stand in the part of the court that "ordinary" criminals stood in is indicative of the flights of fancy on which these morons took themselves.

    It's high time they remembered that all they are is ELECTED members; and all ministers are is ELECTED members. They can be done away with at the next election.

    And all the prime minister is, is an elected member.

    They are not gods.

  7. I know this guy he's a serial drink driver and as lost his licence before , he still thinks he will get off with it and will probably keep driving anyway

  8. I know this guy too and its a cracker! Imagine thinking you are above the law, what will he do next...drive while disqualified! He's been spotted on the roads already.It was about to happen sooner or later....too much time and money to waste. His lawyer must be laughing all the way to the bank!

  9. I kinda think that 2nd time offenders who just think they are above the law should lose their licence forever. Alternatively for people like him a couple of months picking oakum might just do the trick. LOL!