Scrapping the Human Rights Act

[Type R Tom]

I've had someone asking me to close the road outside their house because they are "entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions" as per article 1

[grumbledoak]

I don't think just renaming it a "Bill of Rights" is such a bad idea. It's current name implies that these rights (and there are lots of them) trump all others. And that is how it sometimes get abused. I think a distinction between Fundamental "not tortured" Rights and Societal "if they are behaving themselves" Rights could help.

But I doubt even this can be made to happen, least of all by Spineless Dave. Politicians have few real aims - get power, extend power, (ab)use power. That has got us where we are and re-thinking it is unlikely to give a different result.

[PoleDriver]

Hopefully the last paragraph of the new act will include a clause that states:-
"None of the above will apply in the case of any persons committing acts of murder, rape, terrorism, paedophilia, human trafficking, drug dealing, hate crime or treason."

[Fat Fairy]

Digga said:

Careful wheeling out that old chestnut (venerable though he may be) to justify an argument; he was also the first person to advocate gassing the Kurds in Iraq, FYI.

Careful x 2 on that. Although Churchill spoke of using poison gas "It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gasses: gasses can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected." ie Tear Gasses.

(Considering we had just come through the most destructive war in history, runny eyes and noses doesn't sound quite so bad.)

Just 'cos a US Congressman said we used gas on the Kurds, it doesn't make him correct. It just makes him an ill informed idiot

FF

[Rude-boy]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Whilst I do agree I also think that the Act could do with a little tidying up here and there to take away the uncertainty and vagaries which have forced allowed the wording to be used against the intention.

I would not want to see any real change to the net effect, just a few tweaks to stop the more questionable interpretations gaining traction. Also perhaps a little to stop the great unwashed deciding that everything is against their oomun roites when they can't think of a valid reason to defend their position.

[Rude-boy]

Also just to add, whilst one should not put a price on justice it must be considered that the vast majority of those 27 cases were brought by undesirables who had already exploited and lost at every other avenue. The cost to the state of the cases run by those individuals will have had a significantly negative impact on the rest of the budget left over for the rest of the system.

[JagLover]

TTwiggy said:

Trailhead said:

Good

It is only used by undesirables anyway

Yeah! And it was just some old fart called Winston Churchill that wanted it! Who the hell was he anyway??

There actually isn't anything wrong with the convention just how it has been applied in British law by British judges.

If you read them, such as the right to a family life, the rights of the individual are balanced by the rights of the state.

A British bill of rights is required instead to counter-act the militancy of British judges to more explicitly state the circumstances, for example, when someone can be deported.

Edited by JagLover on Tuesday 12th May 10:33

[wc98]

JagLover said:

There actually isn't anything wrong with the convention just how it has been applied in British law by British judges.

If you read them, such as the right to a family life, the rights of the individual are balanced by the rights of the state.

A British bill of rights is required instead to counter-act the militancy of British judges to more explicitly state the circumstances, for example, when someone can be deported.

Edited by JagLover on Tuesday 12th May 10:33

this is how i see it.the biggest problem we have in the uk with various eu dictat is in how it is implemented by the civil service and judiciary . how we change that i do not know.

[JagLover]

Derek Smith said:

Jasandjules said:

They can simply "amend" the existing act. But you have to question what they hope to remove and why. We have already seen the erosion of public law and the ability of the population to challenge the Govt, that is a worry of itself.

This.

One answer to the question might be that, as they are politicians, this is nothing more than a political move. Posturing and willy-waving.

Another answer is that they do not want outside checks on their actions.

If it is either then one is merely reprehensible whilst the other is scary.

I bet it won't be long before they pass a law to stop police officers saying anything about their concerns.

It is not really about controls over politicians, but their ability to legislate in order to meet the public's concerns.

I fully agree that the decision, say, of the home secretary to deport someone can be subject to judicial review. But the laws under which someone can be deported need to be set by own politicians, duly elected by us.

To have a situation where immigration is one of the most pressing concerns for a big chunk of the electorate, but our politicians not being able to do anything meaningful about it is profoundly undemocratic.

[Esseesse]

TTwiggy said:

Trailhead said:

Good

It is only used by undesirables anyway

Yeah! And it was just some old fart called Winston Churchill that wanted it! Who the hell was he anyway??

IIRC he didn't want it for us?

[Derek Smith]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Thanks for that.

So 25% relate to family life. That's a tremendously high rate.

[RacerMike]

I suppose the question we should really be asking then is 'why does the government want to scrap it?'. I'm not the foil hat wearing kind of person, so generally believe the reasons for such things are likely to either be a) political maneuvering or b) a genuine belief that it's the best choice or c) a public pleasing policy.

So removing all of the cliche's about the Torries being baby eating millionaires and understanding it clearly can't be 'c', which is it? I'm assuming that at least some in the party believe it to be a genuinely good thing to do to somehow improve things, and I can't really see how it can be a particularly good bit of political maneuvering.

[2fast748]

This is an interesting link to some of the back stories behind tabloid headlines:

http://rightsinfo.org/infographics/the-14-worst-hu...

[ewenm]

Derek Smith said:

Thanks for that.

So 25% relate to family life. That's a tremendously high rate.

Sample size too small to draw any conclusions (other than sensationalist headlines).

[Zoon]

andy43 said:

Human rights act or Facebook?

Both

[Esseesse]

RacerMike said:

I suppose the question we should really be asking then is 'why does the government want to scrap it?'.

Or why do we have it? Was there a problem before the ECHR came about?

[ofcorsa]

Aren't bills put before parliament on a routine basis. These acts are updated constantly to reflect changing times. Also whats the democratic way to oppose a bill such as this? Lobbying your MP I assume and not moaning via social media?

[Blib]

Along with a new Human Rights Act, could we have, running in tandem with it, a Human Responsibilities Act?

[Derek Smith]

2fast748 said:

This is an interesting link to some of the back stories behind tabloid headlines:

http://rightsinfo.org/infographics/the-14-worst-hu...

At the time of the criticisms of the UK over a blanket ban on persons in jail voting the subject was raised on a TV news programme. After much outrage one chap, a lawyer, but not the one in the case, was interviewed via remote link and he pointed out that what had been said by the presenter (and in many newspapers) was wrong. There was a short argument and the presenter was put right. There was a final comment from him about it being wrong to be forced to even look at it again and then convicted killers were mentioned.

Or rather, that was it until the subject came up again, after a politician, in a farcical attempt at willy-waving, had said that he was exasperated and furious that the UK was being forced to drop the ban. The presenter then said the same things as he'd said the previous time, probably having forgotten everything that had been said by the only person on the previous programme who'd actually read the decision.

On a well-known motoring forum, one apparent supporter of the ban said, in reply to a comment that "Here come thousands more Labour voters then."

"Nail on head.

"I genuinely think this is the reason that the conservatives have fought this for so long.

"Broadly speaking, the scummy working class prison population will vote Labour as a matter of course, therefore adding thousands of Labour voters to the system."

So suggesting that the ban was there for sectional political reasons. Quite funny really.

It all goes to prove that one cannot trust the newspapers and that each person has the obligations to check things themselves.

[Ridgemont]

Worth reading;

https://dominiccummings.wordpress.com/2015/05/11/o...

in a nutshell; this is going to be difficult.