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 that err, conservatism ?
How will they manage all that from Speakers’ corner ?
1) Defacing a war memorial is appalling behaviour. 2) Consider the State's use of agent provocateurs. The Tories can expect dissent and are lining up more repressive measures, including water cannon, against those who dare to oppose them by taking direct action. The newspapers and TV newsrooms are offered emotive images that suit an agenda (e.g. graffiti on inappropriate places, such as statues and war memorials). Apoplectic, Colonel Trumpington-Bumpton contacts his MP, demanding the use CS gas, tazers, injunctions, ASBOs, water cannon, horse-whips, white noise and nerve-gas. And, hey presto.
Good news is my uncle and cousin have both been elected in birchington north and birchington South. (ignoring the parties they represent both good hardworking, honest men) family are proud.
Good news is my uncle and cousin have both been elected in birchington north and birchington South. (ignoring the parties they represent both good hardworking, honest men) family are proud.
Golf Club chairmen or heads of the local Am Dram ?
Good news is my uncle and cousin have both been elected in birchington north and birchington South. (ignoring the parties they represent both good hardworking, honest men) family are proud.
Golf Club chairmen or heads of the local Am Dram ?
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?
in the last couple of decades have you come accross many people for which fox hunting was an urgent topic? By your logic, labour shouldn't have made the ban on hunting with dogs in the first place.
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.
Thanks for that! I am still not sure about "what is broken" and therefore "what needs fixing". In my view there is a small number of issues on which Strasbourg and "London" have been at odds. None of which are so contentious that they couldn't be solved with some pragmatic changes of approach from the UK point of view.
I think the key issues that have been brought to public attention, have been:
1. Votes for prisoners. We've been told by Strasbourg that a "blanket ban" on prisoner votes is against the ECHR rules. Simple solution: courts can decide to *add* this punishment to prison sentences. De facto - problem goes away.
2. Abu Qatada could not be deported. He's a despicable human; but we want to send him to a despicable regime. Surely, if we think he's done something - anything - wrong, we could have tried him here. But, instead, Teresa May found an even better solution: get the recipient country to mend their ways. Surely that's even better than changing the ECHR ruling anyway?
3. Gay couples and hotel rooms. To be honest, I can see why a "Christian" couple might want to live under their own (odd) rules. But Strasbourg have made things crystal clear and transparent: you cannot - CANNOT - discriminate. What could be better, clearer and simpler-to-follow than that?
4. Whole Life Sentences. I will admit my position here: I am fundamentally opposed to whole life sentences anyway. But, surely, there's a simple solution that works perfectly well with Strasbourg and with London? It's this: the court sets a "life" sentence; and a "life" sentences means that parole is not offered until the Home Secretary at the time decides that it can be offered. In other words, kicking the issue miles off into the distant, future long grass.
There are others, of course, but these are the few that I remember. With small, pragmatic adjustments, we can stick by the laws set by Westminster and work within the outlines of Strasbourg.
And, b doing so, the Tory government can get on with stuff that's actually important!
and in terms of the human rights act, UKIP had it as a key policy to abolish it and replace it. 4 million people voted for them.
We elected one Ukip MP. They're the first party ever to fail to win any MPs in a general election and then lose seats in the following election. I am more than happy to continue to ignore anything proposed by them .
and in terms of the human rights act, UKIP had it as a key policy to abolish it and replace it. 4 million people voted for them.
We elected one Ukip MP. They're the first party ever to fail to win any MPs in a general election and then lose seats in the following election. I am more than happy to continue to ignore anything proposed by them .
ignoring 4 million people is pretty stupid. Maybe logic like this and failing to engage with people and policies they didn't like is why labour lost the election?
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?
in the last couple of decades have you come accross many people for which fox hunting was an urgent topic? By your logic, labour shouldn't have made the ban on hunting with dogs in the first place.
Honestly? Far more people I have spoken to have stated that hunting with dogs is an abhorrent issue and should be - or remain - banned, than people who have singled out the European Court of Human Rights as something that impacts them on a regular, day-to-day basis.
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?
in the last couple of decades have you come accross many people for which fox hunting was an urgent topic? By your logic, labour shouldn't have made the ban on hunting with dogs in the first place.
Honestly? Far more people I have spoken to have stated that hunting with dogs is an abhorrent issue and should be - or remain - banned, than people who have singled out the European Court of Human Rights as something that impacts them on a regular, day-to-day basis.
does fox hunting with dogs impact you on a day to day basis? I'm not advocating hunting with dogs btw, I'm just pointing out the ridiculous arguements your putting forward.
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?
in the last couple of decades have you come accross many people for which fox hunting was an urgent topic? By your logic, labour shouldn't have made the ban on hunting with dogs in the first place.
Oh yes they feckin' should have. Not that it mattered anyway because the hunts carried on doing their thing. Often with the police acting as their accomplices. So much for our 'betters' obeying the law of the land but when you know a dodgy handshake......
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?
in the last couple of decades have you come accross many people for which fox hunting was an urgent topic? By your logic, labour shouldn't have made the ban on hunting with dogs in the first place.
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?
in the last couple of decades have you come accross many people for which fox hunting was an urgent topic? By your logic, labour shouldn't have made the ban on hunting with dogs in the first place.
Honestly? Far more people I have spoken to have stated that hunting with dogs is an abhorrent issue and should be - or remain - banned, than people who have singled out the European Court of Human Rights as something that impacts them on a regular, day-to-day basis.
does fox hunting with dogs impact you on a day to day basis? I'm not advocating hunting with dogs btw, I'm just pointing out the ridiculous arguements your putting forward.
No, it doesn't impact me at all. Although, if I am honest, I support fox hunting. I don't support changes to the Human Rights Act. But, what I am referring to is what people tell me. None of the people I have spoken to has suggested that changes to the Human Rights Act is important. I tend to agree with them.
and in terms of the human rights act, UKIP had it as a key policy to abolish it and replace it. 4 million people voted for them.
We elected one Ukip MP. They're the first party ever to fail to win any MPs in a general election and then lose seats in the following election. I am more than happy to continue to ignore anything proposed by them .
ignoring 4 million people is pretty stupid. Maybe logic like this and failing to engage with people and policies they didn't like is why labour lost the election?
Well you nthners don't do yourselves any favours we offer to by your houses and let you live in them at below London prices, because we have shut all the pits and factories down and know you wouldn't be able to pay London prices
I mean for goodness sake what more do you Want from us sthn tory toffs
Bloody nthners poking their beak into tory business
Bloody Tories ignoring the north historic coal mining towns to look after feckin' southern elite everyone else (though that's not all of you, just their chums)
Well you nthners don't do yourselves any favours we offer to by your houses and let you live in them at below London prices, because we have shut all the pits and factories down and know you wouldn't be able to pay London prices
I mean for goodness sake what more do you Want from us sthn tory toffs
I wouldn't live in London if you paid my mortgage on a Chelsea townhouse mate. Seriously.
Comments
Maybe the want to just amend some laws.
Maybe they want to draft their own one that means a terrorists right to a family life does not overide the right to live in safety for his neighbours.
Local councillors.
I think the key issues that have been brought to public attention, have been:
1. Votes for prisoners. We've been told by Strasbourg that a "blanket ban" on prisoner votes is against the ECHR rules. Simple solution: courts can decide to *add* this punishment to prison sentences. De facto - problem goes away.
2. Abu Qatada could not be deported. He's a despicable human; but we want to send him to a despicable regime. Surely, if we think he's done something - anything - wrong, we could have tried him here. But, instead, Teresa May found an even better solution: get the recipient country to mend their ways. Surely that's even better than changing the ECHR ruling anyway?
3. Gay couples and hotel rooms. To be honest, I can see why a "Christian" couple might want to live under their own (odd) rules. But Strasbourg have made things crystal clear and transparent: you cannot - CANNOT - discriminate. What could be better, clearer and simpler-to-follow than that?
4. Whole Life Sentences. I will admit my position here: I am fundamentally opposed to whole life sentences anyway. But, surely, there's a simple solution that works perfectly well with Strasbourg and with London? It's this: the court sets a "life" sentence; and a "life" sentences means that parole is not offered until the Home Secretary at the time decides that it can be offered. In other words, kicking the issue miles off into the distant, future long grass.
There are others, of course, but these are the few that I remember. With small, pragmatic adjustments, we can stick by the laws set by Westminster and work within the outlines of Strasbourg.
And, b doing so, the Tory government can get on with stuff that's actually important!
"This image has been resized to fit in the page. Click to enlarge."
Christ. Reckon they would take an eye out!!
Oh yes they feckin' should have. Not that it mattered anyway because the hunts carried on doing their thing. Often with the police acting as their accomplices. So much for our 'betters' obeying the law of the land but when you know a dodgy handshake......
True by the way.
Bloody Tories ignoring the north to look after feckin' southern elite (though that's not all of you, just their chums)
I mean for goodness sake what more do you Want from us sthn tory toffs
I wouldn't live in London if you paid my mortgage on a Chelsea townhouse mate. Seriously.