UK 'should cut links to European Court of Human Rights'

[odyssey2200]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12338931

About bloody time!!

[ianash]

We can all live in hope, but don't hold your breath.

[Marty Funkhouser]

a "right leaning" think tank says....leaning??? bloody hell, talk about an understatement

[MX7]

It seems incredible that we can be forced to spend so much time on such a trivial issues like voting rights for prisoners. I hope the advice is followed.

[Pints]

Marty Funkhouser said:

a "right leaning" think tank says....leaning??? bloody hell, talk about an understatement

Says the left-leaning BBC.

[Marty Funkhouser]

Are you really happy to leave our human rights in the hands of our own government? I find it reassuring that the UK Government is answerable to an unbiased court that isnt open to political machinations and lobby groups. The UK Govt hasnt shown itself too bothered about human rights in recent years - control orders for one.

[JagLover]

Marty Funkhouser said:

a "right leaning" think tank says....leaning??? bloody hell, talk about an understatement

I'm not sure it is a particularly left or right wing issue as advocated. They want to maintain our membership of the ECHR, just have it enforced by UK judges rather than the court in question.

It is a question of efficiency and sensitivity to UK laws and customs.

[otolith]

Marty Funkhouser said:

I find it reassuring that the UK Government is answerable to an unbiased court that isnt open to political machinations and lobby groups.

I find your faith in EU institutions being less corrupt than UK ones baffling.

[thinfourth2]

Marty Funkhouser said:

Are you really happy to leave our human rights in the hands of our own government? I find it reassuring that the UK Government is answerable to an unbiased court that isnt open to political machinations and lobby groups. The UK Govt hasnt shown itself too bothered about human rights in recent years - control orders for one.

I don't care who run its aslong as they grasp the basic concept of with rights come responsabilities

Fail to act like a human then no rights


Now where did i leave that woodchipper

[MX7]

Marty Funkhouser said:

Are you really happy to leave our human rights in the hands of our own government? I find it reassuring that the UK Government is answerable to an unbiased court that isnt open to political machinations and lobby groups. The UK Govt hasnt shown itself too bothered about human rights in recent years - control orders for one.

I'm fine with our government controlling our laws. Although the last administration did stray too far from the path, there's no reason to suspect that every government will do so. The alternative is to have representatives from other countries, some of which don't take human rights as seriously as we do, decide our laws for us.

[DonkeyApple]

MX7 said:

Marty Funkhouser said:

Are you really happy to leave our human rights in the hands of our own government? I find it reassuring that the UK Government is answerable to an unbiased court that isnt open to political machinations and lobby groups. The UK Govt hasnt shown itself too bothered about human rights in recent years - control orders for one.

I'm fine with our government controlling our laws. Although the last administration did stray too far from the path, there's no reason to suspect that every government will do so. The alternative is to have representatives from other countries, some of which don't take human rights as seriously as we do, decide our laws for us.

But when you consider just how close the New Labour master plan came to ensuring they would always be in power then you can see the importance of a 3rd party.

[JagLover]

otolith said:

I find your faith in EU institutions being less corrupt than UK ones baffling.

The ECHR isn't actually an EU institution. But your point is still valid, why are foreign judges, many of whom have no knowledge of British law and customs deemed to be auntomatically superior to British ones as the ultimate authority on human rights?

[rs1952]

Marty Funkhouser said:

Are you really happy to leave our human rights in the hands of our own government? I find it reassuring that the UK Government is answerable to an unbiased court that isnt open to political machinations and lobby groups. The UK Govt hasnt shown itself too bothered about human rights in recent years - control orders for one.

You are not alone with this view.

+1 over here

[MX7]

DonkeyApple said:

MX7 said:

Marty Funkhouser said:

Are you really happy to leave our human rights in the hands of our own government? I find it reassuring that the UK Government is answerable to an unbiased court that isnt open to political machinations and lobby groups. The UK Govt hasnt shown itself too bothered about human rights in recent years - control orders for one.

I'm fine with our government controlling our laws. Although the last administration did stray too far from the path, there's no reason to suspect that every government will do so. The alternative is to have representatives from other countries, some of which don't take human rights as seriously as we do, decide our laws for us.

But when you consider just how close the New Labour master plan came to ensuring they would always be in power then you can see the importance of a 3rd party.

No, we have the House of Lords to oversee any legislation. They understand our culture in a way that Strasbourg can't.

Blanket legislation over an area as wide and diverse as Europe can only work so far. As long as countries adhere to the general sentiments of the EU human rights laws, we should be able to decide the finer details ourselves.

In my opinion, this is just a manipulation of the law, and the fact that it's being debated at the moment suggests that it isn't being applied in the manner that was intended.

[rs1952]

JagLover said:

otolith said:

I find your faith in EU institutions being less corrupt than UK ones baffling.

The ECHR isn't actually an EU institution. But your point is still valid, why are foreign judges, many of whom have no knowledge of British law and customs deemed to be auntomatically superior to British ones as the ultimate authority on human rights?

Just because something is "the law" in one country does not automatically make it "good law." The UK position on votes for prisoners is one such area, as is the legislation on abortion in Ireland. An independent overseeing body has the advantage of not being perhaps blinkered by domestic legislation.

[otolith]

JagLover said:

The ECHR isn't actually an EU institution. But your point is still valid, why are foreign judges, many of whom have no knowledge of British law and customs deemed to be auntomatically superior to British ones as the ultimate authority on human rights?

I didn't realise that - so in fact it is even more remote from any vestige of democratic accountability than the institutions of the EU.

[MX7]

rs1952 said:

JagLover said:

otolith said:

I find your faith in EU institutions being less corrupt than UK ones baffling.

The ECHR isn't actually an EU institution. But your point is still valid, why are foreign judges, many of whom have no knowledge of British law and customs deemed to be auntomatically superior to British ones as the ultimate authority on human rights?

Just because something is "the law" in one country does not automatically make it "good law." The UK position on votes for prisoners is one such area, as is the legislation on abortion in Ireland. An independent overseeing body has the advantage of not being perhaps blinkered by domestic legislation.

Why is it a bad law?

[rs1952]

MX7 said:

rs1952 said:

JagLover said:

otolith said:

I find your faith in EU institutions being less corrupt than UK ones baffling.

The ECHR isn't actually an EU institution. But your point is still valid, why are foreign judges, many of whom have no knowledge of British law and customs deemed to be auntomatically superior to British ones as the ultimate authority on human rights?

Just because something is "the law" in one country does not automatically make it "good law." The UK position on votes for prisoners is one such area, as is the legislation on abortion in Ireland. An independent overseeing body has the advantage of not being perhaps blinkered by domestic legislation.

Why is it a bad law?

The examples I gave were just that - examples of where countries may differ over what they think is right or wrong, and other countries might think differently.

To the poster who mentioned the House of Lords - their job is to review legislation before it receives royal assent and, when that happens, their job on that particular matter is done. Legislation may remain on the statute book for many years and circumstances may change - the Lords will not be reviewing that.

[DonkeyApple]

MX7 said:

No, we have the House of Lords to oversee any legislation. They understand our culture in a way that Strasbourg can't.

Blanket legislation over an area as wide and diverse as Europe can only work so far. As long as countries adhere to the general sentiments of the EU human rights laws, we should be able to decide the finer details ourselves.

In my opinion, this is just a manipulation of the law, and the fact that it's being debated at the moment suggests that it isn't being applied in the manner that was intended.

If it were aploitical then you would be right , but sadly, it isn't and it cannot be trusted or relied upon to deliver an honest or fair product.

[MX7]

rs1952 said:

The examples I gave were just that - examples of where countries may differ over what they think is right or wrong, and other countries might think differently.

What examples? You implied that it's a bad law.

"Just because something is "the law" in one country does not automatically make it "good law." The UK position on votes for prisoners is one such area"

Why is it a bad law?

rs1952 said:

To the poster who mentioned the House of Lords - their job is to review legislation before it receives royal assent and, when that happens, their job on that particular matter is done. Legislation may remain on the statute book for many years and circumstances may change - the Lords will not be reviewing that.

So we need some overseer who examines and dissects our legislation on a constant basis? I don't think we do. Laws change all the time. Bad laws are binned, new laws made. We don't need an external assessor with a higher authority than our own system, especially as some of those making the judgments come from countries with a lower respect for human rights than our own.