Identify two rights that are not embedded in law

49
Found 3rd Sep 2013
Community Updates
Misc
49 Comments
that's a cool story
the right to troll.
ewwaxo

the right to troll.



Yes, we know your exercise that right quite frequently.
2sly

Yes, we know your exercise that right quite frequently.



we ? who is 'we' ?
One wrong.
Two rights make a 180 degree turn
No one gives a ****
implied rights = more than 2
if they ain't embedded in law then they ain't "rights" simples
maddogb

if they ain't embedded in law then they ain't "rights" simples



rubbish

you have the right to breathe

you have the right to live

you have the right to scratch your head

~fail
Alfonse

rubbishyou have the right to breatheyou have the right to liveyou have … rubbishyou have the right to breatheyou have the right to liveyou have the right to scratch your head~fail



lets not forget the most important right of all. The right to FAP.
Alfonse

rubbishyou have the right to breatheyou have the right to live~fail



The above two covered by Art.2 HRA
Redking

The above two covered by Art.2 HRA



really, so the breathing reflex is embedded in law....................

~fail
Alfonse

really, so the breathing reflex is embedded in … really, so the breathing reflex is embedded in law....................~fail



you didn't say the breathing reflex is embedded in law, you stated the "right to breathe" which is undeniably covered by Art.2 of the HRA.

Fail
Redking

you didn't say the breathing reflex is embedded in law, you stated the … you didn't say the breathing reflex is embedded in law, you stated the "right to breathe" which is undeniably covered by Art.2 of the HRA. Fail



~fail

so if it wasn't there we wouldn't be allowed to breathe...................................... so dim but no surprise
It is my right to wear dark sunglasses so I can nonce at other women's boobies without my wife catching me doing so. It is my wife's right to make me kip on the sofa if she does catch me.

Do I win?
Alfonse

~failso if it wasn't there we wouldn't be allowed to … ~failso if it wasn't there we wouldn't be allowed to breathe...................................... so dim but no surprise



You're failing to spot the distinction in what you are saying. Not very bright. You're wrong as you are referring to the ability to breathe, yet you state it is a right to breathe. Clear distinction. The right to breathe is covered by Art.2 HRA as any attempt to deny someone of it would contravene the article.

I specialized in human rights law a few years back. Good times.
Redking

You're failing to spot the distinction in what you are saying. Not very … You're failing to spot the distinction in what you are saying. Not very bright. You're wrong as you are referring to the ability to breathe, yet you state it is a right to breathe. Clear distinction. The right to breathe is covered by Art.2 HRA as any attempt to deny someone of it would contravene the article. I specialized in human rights law a few years back. Good times.



still fail

you don't need to state you are allowed to breathe to have the right......................................hence implied rights

plus the HRA doesn't cover all global countries


~specialindeed

Edited by: "Alfonse" 3rd Sep 2013
~whatswithallthetildes?!

Alfonse

still failyou don't need to state you are allowed to breathe to have the … still failyou don't need to state you are allowed to breathe to have the right......................................hence implied rightsplus the HRA doesn't cover all global countries~specialindeed



You didn't state universal global rights, you stated identify two rights not embedded in law. Which I did in response to two of your three examples. You didn't even have the good grace to acknowledge you were completely wrong when you stated the Right to Life.

You clearly do not have much understanding of how the law operates or applies. Try to think before you engage your mouth
Redking

You didn't state universal global rights, you stated identify two rights … You didn't state universal global rights, you stated identify two rights not embedded in law. Which I did in response to two of your three examples. You didn't even have the good grace to acknowledge you were completely wrong when you stated the Right to Life. You clearly do not have much understanding of how the law operates or applies. Try to think before you engage your mouth



the OP doesn't state where the law is also (keep-up), you still fail, you're trying to argue a point in order not to look stupid but that failed too.


Lol, I never said right to LIFE....................as I knew it was in the HRA..............I said the right to live and breathe, life is another context altogether as you well know being specialised in it...............
we ? who is 'we' ?[/quote]

http://cdn.iofferphoto.com/img/1145602800/_i/11785872/1.jpg
Alfonse

the OP doesn't state where the law is also (keep-up), you still fail, … the OP doesn't state where the law is also (keep-up), you still fail, you're trying to argue a point in order not to look stupid but that failed too.Lol, I never said right to LIFE....................as I knew it was in the HRA..............I said the right to live and breathe, life is another context altogether as you well know being specialised in it...............



You're trying to engage in a battle of semantics and still losing
lookingfordeals2013

we ? who is 'we' ?



http://cdn.iofferphoto.com/img/1145602800/_i/11785872/1.jpg[/quote]


http://img.izismile.com/img/img5/20120406/1000/hilarious_obama_animated_gifs_13.gif
Number 1: You have the right not to be killed
Murder is a CRIME!
Unless it was done by a
Policeman or aristocrat
Number 2: You have the right to food money
Providing of course you
Don't mind a little
Humiliation, investigation
And if you cross your fingers
Rehabilitation
Wang! Young offenders! Know your rights
Number 3: You have the right to freeeee
Speech as long as you're not
Dumb enough to actually try it.
Know your rights
These are your rights.
The Clash
Edited by: "g1bbuk" 3rd Sep 2013
The law would be all laws we would be covered by in this country.

It stems from a conversation in our office where one of my colleagues has to teach a unit to a group of E1 LLDD learners with this as one of the criteria.

We argued that in order for something to be a right it is under law.It's a bit like saying name three apples that aren't apples.

I think.
lookingfordeals2013

we ? who is 'we' ?

http://cdn.iofferphoto.com/img/1145602800/_i/11785872/1.jpg[/quote]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/archive/features/images/victor_meldrew220.jpg
AK48

No one gives a ****



Poor Adnan, is everyone ignoring you?
Alfonse took a beating in this thread. Bet it hurts.
gbspurs

Alfonse took a beating in this thread. Bet it hurts.



Made to look a tool as usual. Nothing new to see here.
PhearFactor

Made to look a tool as usual. Nothing new to see here.



http://www.mathmlcentral.com/characters/glyphs/Tilde_L.gif
ewwaxo



http://freemoustache.com/images/moustache1.gif
ewwaxo


hash to tilde..whatever next
brilly

hash to tilde..whatever next



Mostaccio!
lookingfordeals2013

we ? who is 'we' ?



http://cdn.iofferphoto.com/img/1145602800/_i/11785872/1.jpg[/quote]

http://gifatron.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/spiderman_crying.gif
alfonse really? big semantic argument over a simple misread you are saying the equivalent of a tree has a right to be a tree, ofc it has no choice just like you have no choice on whether to breath or not.
fact, without law their are no "rights" it was clearly stated as a legal article not right or wrong, so i repeat if it ain't written in law it ain't a "right"
sancho1983

Poor Adnan, is everyone ignoring you?



What?
AK48

What?



lol
in which law...

common law or criminal law?

they are both different and you need to be clear.

firstly your question is ambiguous...

as a 'right' would be defined by way in some meaning in terms of law....ie.. it is my legal/lawful right to walk here as it is a public highway...

your question i think... is wrong
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text

    Top Discussions

    Top Merchants