Is anyone fundamentally opposed to any of these things?
Right to life Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment Right to liberty and security Freedom from slavery and forced labour Right to a fair trial No punishment without law Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence Freedom of thought, belief and religion Freedom of expression Freedom of assembly and association Right to marry and start a family Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property Right to education Right to participate in free elections
If so, tough titty. Because it looks like our Government is opposed to them.
Not sure but I thought they were looking to re-write a replacement rather than abolish completely?
Yes that's correct, the current Government isn't opposed to these rights. They have always said they would replace the EU-mandated HRA with a British Bill of Rights guaranteeing virtually the same things.
The proof of the Conservative pudding will be in what transpires. They have made the promises, got the gig and they're in charge and now responsible for what happens. If the Conservative plans are consumed by world events I won't be laying that at their door, but Cameron said the job is only half done and we mustn't throw it all away now. The definition of those terms bolded are open to interpretation though. What is now needed is scrutiny, I won't be getting behind this government so much as watching like a hawk. As they say tough decisions huh? So it is tough for the government if they are harried continually as they work, it won't matter because they have the majority and ought to win every House of Commons vote.
Is anyone fundamentally opposed to any of these things?
Right to life Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment Right to liberty and security Freedom from slavery and forced labour Right to a fair trial No punishment without law Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence Freedom of thought, belief and religion Freedom of expression Freedom of assembly and association Right to marry and start a family Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property Right to education Right to participate in free elections
If so, tough titty. Because it looks like our Government is opposed to them.
Not sure but I thought they were looking to re-write a replacement rather than abolish completely?
Correct @Stonemuse .The Conservatives want to stay signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) but it would repeal the Human Rights Act and bring in a British Bill of Rights.
Remaining signed up to the ECHR means individuals could still ask the Strasbourg Court to make a ruling on whether or not their rights have been breached. However, the Conservatives say their Bill of Rights would “break the formal link between British courts and the ECHR, and make our own Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of human rights matters in the UK”.
The proof of the Conservative pudding will be in what transpires. They have made the promises, got the gig and they're in charge and now responsible for what happens. If the Conservative plans are consumed by world events I won't be laying that at their door, but Cameron said the job is only half done and we mustn't throw it all away now. The definition of those terms bolded are open to interpretation though. What is now needed is scrutiny, I won't be getting behind this government so much as watching like a hawk. As they say tough decisions huh? So it is tough for the government if they are harried continually as they work, it won't matter because they have the majority and ought to win every House of Commons vote.
So basically like your attitude with any new Charlton manager!!!
Is anyone fundamentally opposed to any of these things?
Right to life Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment Right to liberty and security Freedom from slavery and forced labour Right to a fair trial No punishment without law Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence Freedom of thought, belief and religion Freedom of expression Freedom of assembly and association Right to marry and start a family Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property Right to education Right to participate in free elections
If so, tough titty. Because it looks like our Government is opposed to them.
Not sure but I thought they were looking to re-write a replacement rather than abolish completely?
Yes that's correct, the current Government isn't opposed to these rights. They have always said they would replace the EU-mandated HRA with a British Bill of Rights guaranteeing virtually the same things.
If they're not opposed to them, why dick about with them now? The Act's been in place since October 2000 - since then, the world's kept spinning.
Is anyone fundamentally opposed to any of these things?
Right to life Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment Right to liberty and security Freedom from slavery and forced labour Right to a fair trial No punishment without law Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence Freedom of thought, belief and religion Freedom of expression Freedom of assembly and association Right to marry and start a family Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property Right to education Right to participate in free elections
If so, tough titty. Because it looks like our Government is opposed to them.
Not sure but I thought they were looking to re-write a replacement rather than abolish completely?
Yes that's correct, the current Government isn't opposed to these rights. They have always said they would replace the EU-mandated HRA with a British Bill of Rights guaranteeing virtually the same things.
If they're not opposed to them, why dick about with them now? The Act's been in place since October 2000 - since then, the world's kept spinning.
Er, you do realise that they may be opposed to just some of them, like what's mentioned in the article.
Is anyone fundamentally opposed to any of these things?
Right to life Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment Right to liberty and security Freedom from slavery and forced labour Right to a fair trial No punishment without law Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence Freedom of thought, belief and religion Freedom of expression Freedom of assembly and association Right to marry and start a family Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property Right to education Right to participate in free elections
If so, tough titty. Because it looks like our Government is opposed to them.
Not sure but I thought they were looking to re-write a replacement rather than abolish completely?
Yes that's correct, the current Government isn't opposed to these rights. They have always said they would replace the EU-mandated HRA with a British Bill of Rights guaranteeing virtually the same things.
If they're not opposed to them, why dick about with them now? The Act's been in place since October 2000 - since then, the world's kept spinning.
Because like a lot of new laws, they're basically like the old law but the party passing the law thinks the new law will be a better way of doing it.
Is anyone fundamentally opposed to any of these things?
Right to life Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment Right to liberty and security Freedom from slavery and forced labour Right to a fair trial No punishment without law Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence Freedom of thought, belief and religion Freedom of expression Freedom of assembly and association Right to marry and start a family Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property Right to education Right to participate in free elections
If so, tough titty. Because it looks like our Government is opposed to them.
Not sure but I thought they were looking to re-write a replacement rather than abolish completely?
Yes that's correct, the current Government isn't opposed to these rights. They have always said they would replace the EU-mandated HRA with a British Bill of Rights guaranteeing virtually the same things.
If they're not opposed to them, why dick about with them now? The Act's been in place since October 2000 - since then, the world's kept spinning.
15 years a lot of things change, only right they look into it and make amendments
Is anyone fundamentally opposed to any of these things?
Right to life Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment Right to liberty and security Freedom from slavery and forced labour Right to a fair trial No punishment without law Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence Freedom of thought, belief and religion Freedom of expression Freedom of assembly and association Right to marry and start a family Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property Right to education Right to participate in free elections
If so, tough titty. Because it looks like our Government is opposed to them.
Not sure but I thought they were looking to re-write a replacement rather than abolish completely?
Yes that's correct, the current Government isn't opposed to these rights. They have always said they would replace the EU-mandated HRA with a British Bill of Rights guaranteeing virtually the same things.
If they're not opposed to them, why dick about with them now? The Act's been in place since October 2000 - since then, the world's kept spinning.
Er, you do realise that they may be opposed to just some of them, like what's mentioned in the article.
Er, yes. You do realise they've been in office for five years already, and apparently the world hasn't ended simply because we have an Act that enshrines fairness?
The proof of the Conservative pudding will be in what transpires. They have made the promises, got the gig and they're in charge and now responsible for what happens. If the Conservative plans are consumed by world events I won't be laying that at their door, but Cameron said the job is only half done and we mustn't throw it all away now. The definition of those terms bolded are open to interpretation though. What is now needed is scrutiny, I won't be getting behind this government so much as watching like a hawk. As they say tough decisions huh? So it is tough for the government if they are harried continually as they work, it won't matter because they have the majority and ought to win every House of Commons vote.
So basically like your attitude with any new Charlton manager!!!
Is anyone fundamentally opposed to any of these things?
Right to life Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment Right to liberty and security Freedom from slavery and forced labour Right to a fair trial No punishment without law Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence Freedom of thought, belief and religion Freedom of expression Freedom of assembly and association Right to marry and start a family Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property Right to education Right to participate in free elections
If so, tough titty. Because it looks like our Government is opposed to them.
Not sure but I thought they were looking to re-write a replacement rather than abolish completely?
Correct @Stonemuse .The Conservatives want to stay signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) but it would repeal the Human Rights Act and bring in a British Bill of Rights.
Remaining signed up to the ECHR means individuals could still ask the Strasbourg Court to make a ruling on whether or not their rights have been breached. However, the Conservatives say their Bill of Rights would “break the formal link between British courts and the ECHR, and make our own Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of human rights matters in the UK”.
Is anyone fundamentally opposed to any of these things?
Right to life Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment Right to liberty and security Freedom from slavery and forced labour Right to a fair trial No punishment without law Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence Freedom of thought, belief and religion Freedom of expression Freedom of assembly and association Right to marry and start a family Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property Right to education Right to participate in free elections
If so, tough titty. Because it looks like our Government is opposed to them.
Not sure but I thought they were looking to re-write a replacement rather than abolish completely?
Yes that's correct, the current Government isn't opposed to these rights. They have always said they would replace the EU-mandated HRA with a British Bill of Rights guaranteeing virtually the same things.
If they're not opposed to them, why dick about with them now? The Act's been in place since October 2000 - since then, the world's kept spinning.
Er, you do realise that they may be opposed to just some of them, like what's mentioned in the article.
Er, yes. You do realise they've been in office for five years already, and apparently the world hasn't ended simply because we have an Act that enshrines fairness?
No you're quite right. Nobody has ever made changes, ammendments or improvements over time.
Is anyone fundamentally opposed to any of these things?
Right to life Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment Right to liberty and security Freedom from slavery and forced labour Right to a fair trial No punishment without law Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence Freedom of thought, belief and religion Freedom of expression Freedom of assembly and association Right to marry and start a family Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property Right to education Right to participate in free elections
If so, tough titty. Because it looks like our Government is opposed to them.
Not sure but I thought they were looking to re-write a replacement rather than abolish completely?
Yes that's correct, the current Government isn't opposed to these rights. They have always said they would replace the EU-mandated HRA with a British Bill of Rights guaranteeing virtually the same things.
If they're not opposed to them, why dick about with them now? The Act's been in place since October 2000 - since then, the world's kept spinning.
What the Human Rights Act says is that British courts must “take into account” judgments of the Strasbourg Court but this has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as meaning that they should follow its decisions very, very closely - as one judge put it: “Strasbourg has spoken, the case is closed”. The conservatives would remove any legal requirement for judges to “take into account” Strasbourg rulings. That doesn’t mean the judges couldn’t or wouldn’t do so.
Another objective for the Conservatives is ensuring that the Strasbourg Court is “no longer able to order a change in UK law”. When the Court makes a ruling in a case involving the UK, it will usually state whether or not a person’s rights have been breached and leave it to the government to take steps to remedy this. That might involve changing one of the UK’s laws, and occasionally the Court will spell this out.
Is anyone fundamentally opposed to any of these things?
Right to life Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment Right to liberty and security Freedom from slavery and forced labour Right to a fair trial No punishment without law Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence Freedom of thought, belief and religion Freedom of expression Freedom of assembly and association Right to marry and start a family Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property Right to education Right to participate in free elections
If so, tough titty. Because it looks like our Government is opposed to them.
Not sure but I thought they were looking to re-write a replacement rather than abolish completely?
Correct @Stonemuse .The Conservatives want to stay signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) but it would repeal the Human Rights Act and bring in a British Bill of Rights.
Remaining signed up to the ECHR means individuals could still ask the Strasbourg Court to make a ruling on whether or not their rights have been breached. However, the Conservatives say their Bill of Rights would “break the formal link between British courts and the ECHR, and make our own Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of human rights matters in the UK”.
So you can appeal to the Courst in Strasbourg, but the UK Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter?
Is anyone fundamentally opposed to any of these things?
Right to life Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment Right to liberty and security Freedom from slavery and forced labour Right to a fair trial No punishment without law Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence Freedom of thought, belief and religion Freedom of expression Freedom of assembly and association Right to marry and start a family Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property Right to education Right to participate in free elections
If so, tough titty. Because it looks like our Government is opposed to them.
Not sure but I thought they were looking to re-write a replacement rather than abolish completely?
Correct @Stonemuse .The Conservatives want to stay signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) but it would repeal the Human Rights Act and bring in a British Bill of Rights.
Remaining signed up to the ECHR means individuals could still ask the Strasbourg Court to make a ruling on whether or not their rights have been breached. However, the Conservatives say their Bill of Rights would “break the formal link between British courts and the ECHR, and make our own Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of human rights matters in the UK”.
So you can appeal to the Courst in Strasbourg, but the UK Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter?
Is anyone fundamentally opposed to any of these things?
Right to life Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment Right to liberty and security Freedom from slavery and forced labour Right to a fair trial No punishment without law Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence Freedom of thought, belief and religion Freedom of expression Freedom of assembly and association Right to marry and start a family Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property Right to education Right to participate in free elections
If so, tough titty. Because it looks like our Government is opposed to them.
Not sure but I thought they were looking to re-write a replacement rather than abolish completely?
Correct @Stonemuse .The Conservatives want to stay signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) but it would repeal the Human Rights Act and bring in a British Bill of Rights.
Remaining signed up to the ECHR means individuals could still ask the Strasbourg Court to make a ruling on whether or not their rights have been breached. However, the Conservatives say their Bill of Rights would “break the formal link between British courts and the ECHR, and make our own Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of human rights matters in the UK”.
So you can appeal to the Courst in Strasbourg, but the UK Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter?
So I believe, though i'm not an expert.
I am not suggesting you're wrong (far from it, because I have no idea about how this is supposed to work!) - but how can we have a process where one court is the Court of Appeal and another one is the sole arbiter?
It just strikes me that there are plenty of other areas of mess the Government should be looking to clear up first. When I have been talking to people in the lead-up to the election, lots of people talked about immigration, the EU, unemployment, zero hours, the banks, taxation, benefits, tax evasion, investment, the pound, HS2, wind power, defence spending, cuts... No-one - not one person - ever talked about how we need to make fundamental changes to the process of enforcing human rights abuse in the UK. But, I guess we've elected a party for whom it's important, so they get to call the priorities.
Is anyone fundamentally opposed to any of these things?
Right to life Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment Right to liberty and security Freedom from slavery and forced labour Right to a fair trial No punishment without law Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence Freedom of thought, belief and religion Freedom of expression Freedom of assembly and association Right to marry and start a family Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property Right to education Right to participate in free elections
If so, tough titty. Because it looks like our Government is opposed to them.
Not sure but I thought they were looking to re-write a replacement rather than abolish completely?
Yes that's correct, the current Government isn't opposed to these rights. They have always said they would replace the EU-mandated HRA with a British Bill of Rights guaranteeing virtually the same things.
If they're not opposed to them, why dick about with them now? The Act's been in place since October 2000 - since then, the world's kept spinning.
Er, you do realise that they may be opposed to just some of them, like what's mentioned in the article.
Er, yes. You do realise they've been in office for five years already, and apparently the world hasn't ended simply because we have an Act that enshrines fairness?
Not true though is it, they were part of a coalition that was In for the past five years
Is anyone fundamentally opposed to any of these things?
Right to life Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment Right to liberty and security Freedom from slavery and forced labour Right to a fair trial No punishment without law Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence Freedom of thought, belief and religion Freedom of expression Freedom of assembly and association Right to marry and start a family Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property Right to education Right to participate in free elections
If so, tough titty. Because it looks like our Government is opposed to them.
Not sure but I thought they were looking to re-write a replacement rather than abolish completely?
Yes that's correct, the current Government isn't opposed to these rights. They have always said they would replace the EU-mandated HRA with a British Bill of Rights guaranteeing virtually the same things.
If they're not opposed to them, why dick about with them now? The Act's been in place since October 2000 - since then, the world's kept spinning.
Er, you do realise that they may be opposed to just some of them, like what's mentioned in the article.
Er, yes. You do realise they've been in office for five years already, and apparently the world hasn't ended simply because we have an Act that enshrines fairness?
Not true though is it, they were part of a coalition that was In for the past five years
And did the world fall apart in that time due to the fact we had a Human Rights Act? My view is that it didn't. And therefore, empirically, it doesn't need fixing.
Is anyone fundamentally opposed to any of these things?
Right to life Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment Right to liberty and security Freedom from slavery and forced labour Right to a fair trial No punishment without law Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence Freedom of thought, belief and religion Freedom of expression Freedom of assembly and association Right to marry and start a family Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property Right to education Right to participate in free elections
If so, tough titty. Because it looks like our Government is opposed to them.
Not sure but I thought they were looking to re-write a replacement rather than abolish completely?
Yes that's correct, the current Government isn't opposed to these rights. They have always said they would replace the EU-mandated HRA with a British Bill of Rights guaranteeing virtually the same things.
If they're not opposed to them, why dick about with them now? The Act's been in place since October 2000 - since then, the world's kept spinning.
Er, you do realise that they may be opposed to just some of them, like what's mentioned in the article.
Er, yes. You do realise they've been in office for five years already, and apparently the world hasn't ended simply because we have an Act that enshrines fairness?
Not true though is it, they were part of a coalition that was In for the past five years
And did the world fall apart in that time due to the fact we had a Human Rights Act? My view is that it didn't. And therefore, empirically, it doesn't need fixing.
Is that your only criteria for whether a law ought to be fixed? That the world didn't fall apart due to the introduction of said law?
Is anyone fundamentally opposed to any of these things?
Right to life Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment Right to liberty and security Freedom from slavery and forced labour Right to a fair trial No punishment without law Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence Freedom of thought, belief and religion Freedom of expression Freedom of assembly and association Right to marry and start a family Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property Right to education Right to participate in free elections
If so, tough titty. Because it looks like our Government is opposed to them.
Not sure but I thought they were looking to re-write a replacement rather than abolish completely?
Yes that's correct, the current Government isn't opposed to these rights. They have always said they would replace the EU-mandated HRA with a British Bill of Rights guaranteeing virtually the same things.
If they're not opposed to them, why dick about with them now? The Act's been in place since October 2000 - since then, the world's kept spinning.
Er, you do realise that they may be opposed to just some of them, like what's mentioned in the article.
Er, yes. You do realise they've been in office for five years already, and apparently the world hasn't ended simply because we have an Act that enshrines fairness?
Not true though is it, they were part of a coalition that was In for the past five years
And did the world fall apart in that time due to the fact we had a Human Rights Act? My view is that it didn't. And therefore, empirically, it doesn't need fixing.
that's probably the worst arguement for anything ever and you could quite easily argue the opposite with the same arguement.
Is anyone fundamentally opposed to any of these things?
Right to life Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment Right to liberty and security Freedom from slavery and forced labour Right to a fair trial No punishment without law Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence Freedom of thought, belief and religion Freedom of expression Freedom of assembly and association Right to marry and start a family Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property Right to education Right to participate in free elections
If so, tough titty. Because it looks like our Government is opposed to them.
Not sure but I thought they were looking to re-write a replacement rather than abolish completely?
Yes that's correct, the current Government isn't opposed to these rights. They have always said they would replace the EU-mandated HRA with a British Bill of Rights guaranteeing virtually the same things.
If they're not opposed to them, why dick about with them now? The Act's been in place since October 2000 - since then, the world's kept spinning.
Er, you do realise that they may be opposed to just some of them, like what's mentioned in the article.
Er, yes. You do realise they've been in office for five years already, and apparently the world hasn't ended simply because we have an Act that enshrines fairness?
Not true though is it, they were part of a coalition that was In for the past five years
And did the world fall apart in that time due to the fact we had a Human Rights Act? My view is that it didn't. And therefore, empirically, it doesn't need fixing.
Is that your only criteria for whether a law ought to be fixed? That the world didn't fall apart due to the introduction of said law?
Help me out here, just read a Labour blog editor saying what Labour need to do to move forward.They need to win back trust on the economy, be prudent with public money, control spending, keep taxes to a minimum,take action on welfare, and get people back in work.
Is anyone fundamentally opposed to any of these things?
Right to life Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment Right to liberty and security Freedom from slavery and forced labour Right to a fair trial No punishment without law Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence Freedom of thought, belief and religion Freedom of expression Freedom of assembly and association Right to marry and start a family Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property Right to education Right to participate in free elections
If so, tough titty. Because it looks like our Government is opposed to them.
Not sure but I thought they were looking to re-write a replacement rather than abolish completely?
Yes that's correct, the current Government isn't opposed to these rights. They have always said they would replace the EU-mandated HRA with a British Bill of Rights guaranteeing virtually the same things.
If they're not opposed to them, why dick about with them now? The Act's been in place since October 2000 - since then, the world's kept spinning.
Er, you do realise that they may be opposed to just some of them, like what's mentioned in the article.
Er, yes. You do realise they've been in office for five years already, and apparently the world hasn't ended simply because we have an Act that enshrines fairness?
Not true though is it, they were part of a coalition that was In for the past five years
And did the world fall apart in that time due to the fact we had a Human Rights Act? My view is that it didn't. And therefore, empirically, it doesn't need fixing.
that's probably the worst arguement for anything ever and you could quite easily argue the opposite with the same arguement.
In the last few weeks, have you come across a lot of people for whom this is the most urgent topic?
Is anyone fundamentally opposed to any of these things?
Right to life Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment Right to liberty and security Freedom from slavery and forced labour Right to a fair trial No punishment without law Respect for your private and family life, home and correspondence Freedom of thought, belief and religion Freedom of expression Freedom of assembly and association Right to marry and start a family Protection from discrimination in respect of these rights and freedoms Right to peaceful enjoyment of your property Right to education Right to participate in free elections
If so, tough titty. Because it looks like our Government is opposed to them.
Not sure but I thought they were looking to re-write a replacement rather than abolish completely?
Correct @Stonemuse .The Conservatives want to stay signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) but it would repeal the Human Rights Act and bring in a British Bill of Rights.
Remaining signed up to the ECHR means individuals could still ask the Strasbourg Court to make a ruling on whether or not their rights have been breached. However, the Conservatives say their Bill of Rights would “break the formal link between British courts and the ECHR, and make our own Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of human rights matters in the UK”.
So you can appeal to the Courst in Strasbourg, but the UK Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter?
So I believe, though i'm not an expert.
I am not suggesting you're wrong (far from it, because I have no idea about how this is supposed to work!) - but how can we have a process where one court is the Court of Appeal and another one is the sole arbiter?
It just strikes me that there are plenty of other areas of mess the Government should be looking to clear up first. When I have been talking to people in the lead-up to the election, lots of people talked about immigration, the EU, unemployment, zero hours, the banks, taxation, benefits, tax evasion, investment, the pound, HS2, wind power, defence spending, cuts... No-one - not one person - ever talked about how we need to make fundamental changes to the process of enforcing human rights abuse in the UK. But, I guess we've elected a party for whom it's important, so they get to call the priorities.
Sorry, Chizz, I don't think I was clear. Rushing a bit.......
As I understand it, an individual can take their case to the ECHR in Strasbourg (rather than appeal to it), and ECHR can pronounce upon it. If the conservatives pass their legislation, this will not change but the UK court will not be bound to take Strasbourg's view although they may (and probably would, in most cases) do so. At present what Strasbourg says, goes and the UK may even have to change it's laws to accommodate what Strasbourg says. That will go under the new legislation.
I have no idea whether the UK Bill of Rights would replicate all of the provisions of the existing european act, or omit some - but I would be surprised if there was much change. The key point is "who has the final say, Europe or UK?". The tories want it to be the UK.
Comments
Source: some hippy on twitter.
#toriesout
If the Conservative plans are consumed by world events I won't be laying that at their door, but Cameron said the job is only half done and we mustn't throw it all away now. The definition of those terms bolded are open to interpretation though.
What is now needed is scrutiny, I won't be getting behind this government so much as watching like a hawk. As they say tough decisions huh? So it is tough for the government if they are harried continually as they work, it won't matter because they have the majority and ought to win every House of Commons vote.
Remaining signed up to the ECHR means individuals could still ask the Strasbourg Court to make a ruling on whether or not their rights have been breached. However, the Conservatives say their Bill of Rights would “break the formal link between British courts and the ECHR, and make our own Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of human rights matters in the UK”.
15 years a lot of things change, only right they look into it and make amendments
Another objective for the Conservatives is ensuring that the Strasbourg Court is “no longer able to order a change in UK law”. When the Court makes a ruling in a case involving the UK, it will usually state whether or not a person’s rights have been breached and leave it to the government to take steps to remedy this. That might involve changing one of the UK’s laws, and occasionally the Court will spell this out.
It just strikes me that there are plenty of other areas of mess the Government should be looking to clear up first. When I have been talking to people in the lead-up to the election, lots of people talked about immigration, the EU, unemployment, zero hours, the banks, taxation, benefits, tax evasion, investment, the pound, HS2, wind power, defence spending, cuts... No-one - not one person - ever talked about how we need to make fundamental changes to the process of enforcing human rights abuse in the UK. But, I guess we've elected a party for whom it's important, so they get to call the priorities.
Not true though is it, they were part of a coalition that was In for the past five years
As I understand it, an individual can take their case to the ECHR in Strasbourg (rather than appeal to it), and ECHR can pronounce upon it. If the conservatives pass their legislation, this will not change but the UK court will not be bound to take Strasbourg's view although they may (and probably would, in most cases) do so. At present what Strasbourg says, goes and the UK may even have to change it's laws to accommodate what Strasbourg says. That will go under the new legislation.
I have no idea whether the UK Bill of Rights would replicate all of the provisions of the existing european act, or omit some - but I would be surprised if there was much change. The key point is "who has the final say, Europe or UK?". The tories want it to be the UK.