Scrapping the Human Rights Act

Author
Discussion

MagicalTrevor

Original Poster:

6,476 posts

228 months

Monday 11th May 2015
quotequote all
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 ...

madbadger

11,554 posts

243 months

Monday 11th May 2015
quotequote all
Facebook sounds like it is being torn up and people will be tortured as a matter of policy.

I would be surprised if it is that simple. I would also be surprised if clicking on a petition would make a difference if that were the case.

Jasandjules

69,825 posts

228 months

Monday 11th May 2015
quotequote all
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.

Trailhead

2,628 posts

146 months

Monday 11th May 2015
quotequote all
Good

It is only used by undesirables anyway

Willy Nilly

12,511 posts

166 months

Monday 11th May 2015
quotequote all
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

TTwiggy

11,499 posts

203 months

Monday 11th May 2015
quotequote all
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??

eldar

21,614 posts

195 months

Monday 11th May 2015
quotequote all
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.

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...



Trailhead

2,628 posts

146 months

Monday 11th May 2015
quotequote all
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 was never the spirit of the act for which it is now relied upon by criminals and terrorists.

"It's against ma ooman rights, innit"

98elise

26,364 posts

160 months

Monday 11th May 2015
quotequote all
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
This

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.


Derek Smith

45,512 posts

247 months

Monday 11th May 2015
quotequote all
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.


ATG

20,480 posts

271 months

Monday 11th May 2015
quotequote all
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?

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.

dbdb

4,311 posts

172 months

Monday 11th May 2015
quotequote all
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?

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.
I agree.

andy43

9,545 posts

253 months

Monday 11th May 2015
quotequote all
Trailhead said:
Good

It is only used by undesirables anyway
Human rights act or Facebook?

Mojooo

12,668 posts

179 months

Monday 11th May 2015
quotequote all
EssentiallyI suspect the wording of the elgsialtion can stay roughly the same - its the way it is interpreted that sometimes causes issues.

davepoth

29,395 posts

198 months

Monday 11th May 2015
quotequote all
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?

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 gripe is as I understand not actually with the convention, but with protocol 11, which came into action in 1998 (and was why we got the HRA). That made some important changes - allowing individuals to apply direct to the court rather than through the commission, and making adherence to the rulings of the court compulsory.

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.

9mm

3,128 posts

209 months

Monday 11th May 2015
quotequote all
I'll wait to see the details but I hope and expect it will make it easier to deport people. The 'right to a family life' seems to trump being a thoroughly undesirable interloper at the moment.

Terminator X

14,920 posts

203 months

Monday 11th May 2015
quotequote all
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 was never the spirit of the act for which it is now relied upon by criminals and terrorists.

"It's against ma ooman rights, innit"
New Law comes in and people take the piss shocker! Hopefully they'll keep the intent but remove the elements used by crims to avoid deportation.

TX.

Skywalker

3,269 posts

213 months

Tuesday 12th May 2015
quotequote all
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

AJS-

15,366 posts

235 months

Tuesday 12th May 2015
quotequote all
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.

Digga

40,201 posts

282 months

Tuesday 12th May 2015
quotequote all
TTwiggy said:
Yeah! And it was just some old fart called Winston Churchill that wanted it! Who the hell was he anyway??
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.