Scrapping the Human Rights Act
Discussion
I've seen this all over social media today and whilst I've not read into this in detail, I've scanned the Conservative webpage about their plans.
To me, and I'm prepared to be corrected, it appears that they're planning on scrapping it and starting again, basing the new Act on parts of the old one. Not 'allowing people to be tortured' as implied.
Sure this would be like me saying, I'm removing my old tyres and replacing them with more appropriate tyres but somebody thinking that I'm actually going to run the car with no tyres.
Maybe a bad analogy ...
To me, and I'm prepared to be corrected, it appears that they're planning on scrapping it and starting again, basing the new Act on parts of the old one. Not 'allowing people to be tortured' as implied.
Sure this would be like me saying, I'm removing my old tyres and replacing them with more appropriate tyres but somebody thinking that I'm actually going to run the car with no tyres.
Maybe a bad analogy ...
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.
That said, the EU will still require the fundamentals to be continued.
That said, the EU will still require the fundamentals to be continued.
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.
That said, the EU will still require the fundamentals to be continued.
it always seems like the idea behind the act is a good one, but what gets on peoples tits is criminals and wasters hiding behind it That said, the EU will still require the fundamentals to be continued.
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.
That said, the EU will still require the fundamentals to be continued.
I'd hope the 'amendments' would be restricted to allowing the UK to deport foreign criminals like these, and similar.That said, the EU will still require the fundamentals to be continued.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration...
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/oct/22/for...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10771...
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??It is only used by undesirables anyway
"It's against ma ooman rights, innit"
Willy Nilly 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.
That said, the EU will still require the fundamentals to be continued.
it always seems like the idea behind the act is a good one, but what gets on peoples tits is criminals and wasters hiding behind it That said, the EU will still require the fundamentals to be continued.
We really didn't need it, but is sounded like a good thing. Turns out that its really good for shooting ourselves in the foot.
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.
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.
That said, the EU will still require the fundamentals to be continued.
Quite. I always wonder which rights the critics of the ECHR think shouldn't apply to themselves?That said, the EU will still require the fundamentals to be continued.
Those complaining about the abuses of "my ooman rights" should take a closer look at the cases that annoy them. As often as not the only thing blocking a common sense outcome is the failure of the Home Office to get its st together. Either they can't define a reasonable due process in the first place or they can't put defined due process into practice. The Home Office is hamstrung by its own incompetence, not by the ECHR or the HRA.
ATG 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.
That said, the EU will still require the fundamentals to be continued.
Quite. I always wonder which rights the critics of the ECHR think shouldn't apply to themselves?That said, the EU will still require the fundamentals to be continued.
Those complaining about the abuses of "my ooman rights" should take a closer look at the cases that annoy them. As often as not the only thing blocking a common sense outcome is the failure of the Home Office to get its st together. Either they can't define a reasonable due process in the first place or they can't put defined due process into practice. The Home Office is hamstrung by its own incompetence, not by the ECHR or the HRA.
ATG 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.
That said, the EU will still require the fundamentals to be continued.
Quite. I always wonder which rights the critics of the ECHR think shouldn't apply to themselves?That said, the EU will still require the fundamentals to be continued.
Those complaining about the abuses of "my ooman rights" should take a closer look at the cases that annoy them. As often as not the only thing blocking a common sense outcome is the failure of the Home Office to get its st together. Either they can't define a reasonable due process in the first place or they can't put defined due process into practice. The Home Office is hamstrung by its own incompetence, not by the ECHR or the HRA.
The problem is that a lot of case law has built up very quickly in a lot of matters that the commission (pre protocol 11 and the HRA) wouldn't have got around to looking at because they weren't really that important. That case law has impinged upon national government in unexpected ways, and that's what the "scrapping" of the HRA is really about.
Even as a tory I confess I'm deeply uneasy about this - even if it's being done for the right reasons it sends completely the wrong message to the rest of the world. Reform from within should have been the preferred option, possibly amending the Protocol 11 clauses to reduce the impact of the EctHR in "trivial" matters.
Trailhead said:
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??It is only used by undesirables anyway
"It's against ma ooman rights, innit"
TX.
Mojooo said:
EssentiallyI suspect the wording of the elgsialtion can stay roughly the same - its the way it is interpreted that sometimes causes issues.
Exactly. The Act itself is fine & dandy.They way that some judges have interpretted it is lunacy and the government if they want to tinker with it should invest time into providing some definitions and parameters for it. The 'Right to respect of family life' is the bit most often cited when someone should be deported - and this could do with some clarity.
The Act also covers the balance of rights between different people / public authorities. Where this has led to some good decisions around defence is arguably seen in the killing of the Nimrod MRA4 - which whilst it has caused some nashing of teeth, was a significantly unsafe aircraft and which in previous times would have got into service 'because it's the military' as opposed to it being in fact airworthy.
Of course - we could always reduce the number of lawyers..l
He's just going to open it up in Word and use Find & Replace to create a British Bill of Rights.
People will still have the right to appeal it to Strasbourg under the European Convention of Human Rights. As I understand it if he were to take Britain out of the ECHR then it would essentially negate our EU membership anyway as this is a requirement, as well as invalidating the Good Friday Agreement and a whole lot of other things that will not happen.
People will still have the right to appeal it to Strasbourg under the European Convention of Human Rights. As I understand it if he were to take Britain out of the ECHR then it would essentially negate our EU membership anyway as this is a requirement, as well as invalidating the Good Friday Agreement and a whole lot of other things that will not happen.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff