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.
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.
