Scrapping the Human Rights Act

[NicD]

I did read some of that, but seemed rather vague and theoretical, the benefits of little interest to me compared to the cost of HR industry here.

Even the luvvie's latest propaganda attempt seems rather short of 'ordinary people' examples.

I have no doubt there have been benefits but is the cost proportionate?
Keeping hundreds (thousands?) of the legal industry in luxury and being forced to host thousand of foreign criminals in the country seems a high cost.

[Cheese Mechanic]

Methinks the people most worried about the UK ditching the human rights act are those with a vested interest, the parasites who get the most out of complex obfuscatory laws, who?

The practicioners from Cashtrough, Snout and Graveeeytrain LLp thats who. The alledged "legal profession" who make millions on the back of this "human rights" act.

Heck, supplanting it with our own laws may not not stop the Graveeeeytrain totally for the parasites , but at least , it may curtail some of the worst excesses and excuses these people revel in to plunder public money.

[Cheese Mechanic]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Take your pick (random examples from dozens)

http://www.leighday.co.uk/Asserting-your-rights/Hu...

http://www.irwinmitchell.com/personal/protecting-y...

http://www.bindmans.com/what-we-do/view/human-righ...

At least one of them starts by quoting the HRA in their preamble, and buggar me, they have an association as well,All aboard!!

http://www.hrla.org.uk/

[IainT]

Cheese Mechanic said:

Methinks the people most worried about the UK ditching the human rights act are those with a vested interest

I'm concerned about leaving and I have absolutely zero vested interest. The only point I've seen raised for ditching it and replacing it with our own is the possible cost savings but that's all theoretical on the assumption that abuse of the current act is wide scale and an inherent feature of the act.

Every single area that the current act covers will need to be covered by our new act, where we seek to interact with the EU it will need to be compatible - and why wouldn't it? Most of the stuff in the current act is so clearly good you'd be an odd duck to argue against it.

I've a friend who's a Lawyer whose opinion I greatly respect (although I'd never tell him that, I enjoy arguing with him too much), earlier in his career he worked in the field of constitutional affairs before ditching it for the filthy lucre of the corporate world & moving to one of the top banks. His view is that the overall benefits of being part of the ECHR convention massively outweigh the negatives.

Sometimes, surprisingly often, the cost of something is not the measure of its value.

[turbobloke]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The overall impact of human rights legalese in terms of beagles 'winning' the retention of known murderers and rapists, on the loose and fully sanctioned by law, is no worse than fall-out from a commercial property law marketing fest? Dream on.

As for "no worse than any other piece of legalese carp" what an amazing recommendation even if it were so, which it's not.

[Scuffers]

people keep going on about the HRA and Churchill's day..

how come then we were all good till Blair brought in the Human Rights Act 1998

we managed for many years without this...

good breakdown of history here:

http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/government/civil_righ...

[IainT]

Interesting link Scuffers. From that:

"Many of the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 are derived from the European Convention on Human Rights, which was created in September 1953 and is binding on members of the Council of Europe, which includes the United Kingdom."

So we were bound by the ECHR from 1953 anyway and will continue to be so unless we resign our place on the Council of Europe.

Seems to me to be wise to drop the current proposals until the EURef is done and dusted.

[Scuffers]

IainT said:

Interesting link Scuffers. From that:

"Many of the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 are derived from the European Convention on Human Rights, which was created in September 1953 and is binding on members of the Council of Europe, which includes the United Kingdom."

So we were bound by the ECHR from 1953 anyway and will continue to be so unless we resign our place on the Council of Europe.

Seems to me to be wise to drop the current proposals until the EURef is done and dusted.

yes, but the bit you missed is who has supremacy over the decisions...

before, UK judiciary, who tended to keep it sensible..

[Scuffers]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

history show's us that's not what's been happening though

[turbobloke]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

The wider implications cannot be ignored and having previously read widely on this I disagree about consequences of the HRA.

[turbobloke]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Yes - what should happen and what happens can be two different things.

http://www.betteroffout.net/uk-loses-again-in-echr...

There should be no doubt whatsoever; the existence of the unnecessary EU-side layer is at the root of the problem.

[IainT]

turbobloke said:

There should be no doubt whatsoever; the existence of the unnecessary EU-side layer is at the root of the problem.

Or the unnecessary UK-side layer.

[turbobloke]

IainT said:

turbobloke said:

There should be no doubt whatsoever; the existence of the unnecessary EU-side layer is at the root of the problem.

Or the unnecessary UK-side layer.

Not quite. Having your own elected muppets, and juciciary based on Planet Zorg, is what passes as democracy and justice and we know what to expect. At least we elect the muppets, and the laws on which the qualified and experienced if other-worldly judiciary rules are made by those same muppets. On the EU side there are decision makers and law/regulation framers who were not elected by anyone, and the judges are way behond Planet Zorg somewhere in another Galaxy.

Election of Judges to the European Court of Human Rights Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights Procedure for Electing Judges to the European Court of Human Rights said:

The judges shall be of high moral character and must either possess the qualifications required for appointment to high judicial office or be jurisconsults of recognised competence.

Does the lack of any mention of experience and expertise gleaned from being a Judge mean that EHCR Judges don't need actual experience as a Judge?

Amazingly, it does...judges at the European Court of Human Rights have no judicial experience, its President admitted yesterday.



As previously, we don't need the bonkers EU side since compared to our side the level of unfitness for purpose and proclivity for meddling are self-evidently off the scale.

[turbobloke]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Sorting the mess from the meddling of EU Judges with no judicial experience is cost-free financially and in terms of HRA outcomes? We don't need it and shouldn't be involved in the mess or costs of dealing with it. The EU side is unnecessary and even less fit for purpose than our side.

[turbobloke]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Such naiveté must be contrived. Of course they get elected i.e. "voted in without such experience".

As per ECHR President as-was Sir Nicolas Bratza: ECHR judges include former academics parachuted into the role. No experience as Judges, ivory tower mentality, resident in Galaxy Gobbledigook whereas at least our own are merely on Planet Zorg and rule on laws passed by our own Muppets in Parliament.

Sir Nicolas Bratza's background includes judicial experience limited to a brief stint as a crown court Recorder.

Wunderbar ECHR is unnecessary, our Bar will do.

Edited by turbobloke on Thursday 28th May 09:53

[Derek Smith]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

From my reading, what the EHCR requested was that the government of this country should look at the total ban. If the government felt it was correct, then it could remain. The thing that was in contravention was the blanket, i.e. thoughtless, arbtrary, ban.

The EHCR thought that it the question should go before parliament.

Seems reasonable to me.

[cirian75]

Another win for the HRA 1998

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33020987

The real reason I think Cameron and Co want to scrap it.

[IainT]

cirian75 said:

Another win for the HRA 1998

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33020987

The real reason I think Cameron and Co want to scrap it.

I don't see the article mentioning the HRA or any courts outside the UK High Court being involved. Human Rights only mentioned in the context that the court ruled they weren't breached and no damages awarded even though the DWP delays were unacceptable and unlawful.

[BlackLabel]

It's that time of year again when a politician repeats a manifesto pledge knowing full well it won't happen - a bit like the tens of thousands immigration pledge.

With a wafer-thin majority in the commons and a disproportionate number of lib dem and labour peers in the Lords this isn't a fight that the government will win.

telegraph said:

The Human Rights Act will be scrapped in favour of a British Bill of Rights by the new Government, the Justice Secretary has pledged.

A new British Bill of Rights will be introduced, Liz Truss has insisted, dismissing speculation that the Government is planning to scrap the manifesto pledge.

In recent weeks it was suggested that the Bill had been "junked" by Theresa May's new top team.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/22/new-british-bill-of-rights-will-not-be-scrapped-insists-liz-trus/

[ATG]

Muppets.