It's looking increasingly likely that this Government wants to scrap the Human Rights Act. You, know, that piece of law which enshrines all sorts of rights that we should value, like the right to life, freedom from torture, freedom from slavery, respect for private life, right to marry and start a family, protection from discrimination, right to education, etc, etc.
Now, some people might think that's a good idea. I can't for the life of me think why, but some people might.
But not everyone is a fan of the idea. Carwyn Jones, the leader of the Welsh Assembly has said that scrapping the Human Rights Act "makes us look like a banana republic". The Scottish Parliament has said it will withhold legislative consent on scrapping the Act. And, as you can see in this letter (below) scrapping the Act will put us in breach of the UK-Republic of Ireland Good Friday Agreement.
So, well done Tories. So far you're doing a great job "bringing the country together".
you do like to over react dont you Chizz. It's like you think Cameron is gonna bring back slavery, torture and the work houses.
I'm sure a British Bill of Rights will cover all the laws and values you mention.
I don't think pointing out what the Scottish Parliament says, what the leader of the Welsh Assembly says and highlighting what impact this unnecessary legislation will have on the Good Friday Agreement should be called "over reacting".
Maybe getting together a petition would be over reacting. But someone *else* has done that already. So maybe there's 109,000 other people "over reacting" too?
He cherrypicks the marginals the Tories won doesn't he? What about marginal wins by other parties.
Don't you know that 76.4% of statistics are made up on the spot?
That's the point. He's saying that if 901 voters had changed their minds from Tory to Labour in those marginals, the Tories wouldn't be in power (with a majority at least).
But its about as valid as saying that if we had played Wigan home and away 5 times instead of Millwall/select four others, we'd have got into the playoffs. Were there no marginals that the tories lost by small margins (I don't know but that blogger would)?
All I'm saying is that 901 voters did NOT decide the election result, contrary to your assertion.
The point that concerns me more than the percentages being thrown around is the part about "lifting restrictions on agency workers replacing those on strike". It doesn't matter if you get the 40%\50% if they are just allowed to replace you for the duration of the strike.
Also, I didn't realise that basic human rights were a British legal issue for British judges. I thought that they were a basic right for everyone. It will also cause problems with the good Friday agreement. This is not an issue to be taken lightly and it feels like the new government has yet to grasp that point.
I love how everyone on here and on social media behaves like David Cameron is some nasty right-wing politician. He's almost as much of a lefty as Miliband!!
I love how everyone on here and on social media behaves like David Cameron is some nasty right-wing politician. He's almost as much of a lefty as Miliband!!
How so? Genuinely interested to hear the reasons for someone describing Cameron as a lefty, unless he is left handed.
Also, I didn't realise that basic human rights were a British legal issue for British judges. I thought that they were a basic right for everyone. It will also cause problems with the good Friday agreement. This is not an issue to be taken lightly and it feels like the new government had yet to grasp that point.
You get human rights by virtue of being human. But how they are applied or enforced is territorial. Try your luck in Uganda or North Korea. What the convention does is to set out a set of rights that signatories agree on. Then in some of the civilised countries you have legislation enshrining those rights and a structure enabling the human to appeal if he or she believes they have been infringed. This debate shows that different interpretations are possible in certain cases even between countries we'd regard as civilised.
It's looking increasingly likely that this Government wants to scrap the Human Rights Act. You, know, that piece of law which enshrines all sorts of rights that we should value, like the right to life, freedom from torture, freedom from slavery, respect for private life, right to marry and start a family, protection from discrimination, right to education, etc, etc.
Now, some people might think that's a good idea. I can't for the life of me think why, but some people might.
But not everyone is a fan of the idea. Carwyn Jones, the leader of the Welsh Assembly has said that scrapping the Human Rights Act "makes us look like a banana republic". The Scottish Parliament has said it will withhold legislative consent on scrapping the Act. And, as you can see in this letter (below) scrapping the Act will put us in breach of the UK-Republic of Ireland Good Friday Agreement.
So, well done Tories. So far you're doing a great job "bringing the country together".
you do like to over react dont you Chizz. It's like you think Cameron is gonna bring back slavery, torture and the work houses.
I'm sure a British Bill of Rights will cover all the laws and values you mention.
I don't think pointing out what the Scottish Parliament says, what the leader of the Welsh Assembly says and highlighting what impact this unnecessary legislation will have on the Good Friday Agreement should be called "over reacting".
Maybe getting together a petition would be over reacting. But someone *else* has done that already. So maybe there's 109,000 other people "over reacting" too?
It's looking increasingly likely that this Government wants to scrap the Human Rights Act. You, know, that piece of law which enshrines all sorts of rights that we should value, like the right to life, freedom from torture, freedom from slavery, respect for private life, right to marry and start a family, protection from discrimination, right to education, etc, etc.
He cherrypicks the marginals the Tories won doesn't he? What about marginal wins by other parties.
Don't you know that 76.4% of statistics are made up on the spot?
That's the point. He's saying that if 901 voters had changed their minds from Tory to Labour in those marginals, the Tories wouldn't be in power (with a majority at least).
It's an interesting stat but not really sure what conclusions you can draw for it. That quite a few seats were marginal (which I guess is a good thing if you hate the idea of safe seats)? That Labour's defeat was bad in reality but not on paper? That the outcome of the election was in the hands of a very small number of swing voters (which would serve as a useful illustration of how bad FPTP is)? We already knew all 3 of these points though. Guess it is a really good stat though if you want to convince someone of the issues with our voting system.
It's looking increasingly likely that this Government wants to scrap the Human Rights Act. You, know, that piece of law which enshrines all sorts of rights that we should value, like the right to life, freedom from torture, freedom from slavery, respect for private life, right to marry and start a family, protection from discrimination, right to education, etc, etc.
Now, some people might think that's a good idea. I can't for the life of me think why, but some people might.
But not everyone is a fan of the idea. Carwyn Jones, the leader of the Welsh Assembly has said that scrapping the Human Rights Act "makes us look like a banana republic". The Scottish Parliament has said it will withhold legislative consent on scrapping the Act. And, as you can see in this letter (below) scrapping the Act will put us in breach of the UK-Republic of Ireland Good Friday Agreement.
So, well done Tories. So far you're doing a great job "bringing the country together".
you do like to over react dont you Chizz. It's like you think Cameron is gonna bring back slavery, torture and the work houses.
I'm sure a British Bill of Rights will cover all the laws and values you mention.
I don't think pointing out what the Scottish Parliament says, what the leader of the Welsh Assembly says and highlighting what impact this unnecessary legislation will have on the Good Friday Agreement should be called "over reacting".
Maybe getting together a petition would be over reacting. But someone *else* has done that already. So maybe there's 109,000 other people "over reacting" too?
Since 38 Degrees are in the business of manufactured and hyperbolic outrage, I wouldn't be opposed to someone saying there's 109,000 over-reacting as well.
He cherrypicks the marginals the Tories won doesn't he? What about marginal wins by other parties.
Don't you know that 76.4% of statistics are made up on the spot?
That's the point. He's saying that if 901 voters had changed their minds from Tory to Labour in those marginals, the Tories wouldn't be in power (with a majority at least).
It's an interesting stat but not really sure what conclusions you can draw for it. That quite a few seats were marginal (which I guess is a good thing if you hate the idea of safe seats)? That Labour's defeat was bad in reality but not on paper? That the outcome of the election was in the hands of a very small number of swing voters (which would serve as a useful illustration of how bad FPTP is)? We already knew all 3 of these points though. Guess it is a really good stat though if you want to convince someone of the issues with our voting system.
That was the reason behind me posting it (that and the fact that it is an interesting stat).
The sooner FPTP is ditched, the better. Wouldn't it be lovely if we could look to freshen up our politics with a multi-party system where tactical voting has less influence?
"For too long, we have been... Saying to our citizens as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone..."
Sounds great...
Do we need to tackle extremism, yes, but this act isn't. It's dealing with symptoms not causes. It won't stop extremists but what it does allow is for the government to silence critics who "don't conform to British values". Where do you draw the line? What if some nut job convinces the country to put them in charge. Their definition of values will be completely different. It is almost Orwellian in its ideals.
If anything you are marginalising more people, making them more angry and more likely to turn to extreme acts to get their point across.
Also, I didn't realise that basic human rights were a British legal issue for British judges. I thought that they were a basic right for everyone. It will also cause problems with the good Friday agreement. This is not an issue to be taken lightly and it feels like the new government had yet to grasp that point.
You get human rights by virtue of being human. But how they are applied or enforced is territorial. Try your luck in Uganda or North Korea. What the convention does is to set out a set of rights that signatories agree on. Then in some of the civilised countries you have legislation enshrining those rights and a structure enabling the human to appeal if he or she believes they have been infringed. This debate shows that different interpretations are possible in certain cases even between countries we'd regard as civilised.
Exactly, so creating your own set of rules, rather than sticking to an agreed set in what is consider a civilised part of the world, should be treated with caution and viewed as incredibly dangerous no?
Will it be very different, no, but it should be treated with caution nonetheless. Even the smallest change can have a massive effect.
That was the reason behind me posting it (that and the fact that it is an interesting stat).
The sooner FPTP is ditched, the better. Wouldn't it be lovely if we could look to freshen up our politics with a multi-party system where tactical voting has less influence?
I'd like a system where tactical voting is not even a thing. AV and AV+ guarantee this.
The idea that you don't vote for the party who best fits your politics defeats the whole point of having more than 2 parties in any one ballot. You might as well be voting between being punched in the arm or kicked in the leg.
Which of the rights do the Tories want us to get rid of?
Just the one that an unelected Judge in Strasbourg interprets.
You'd prefer *our* unelected judges to the Strasbourg unelected judges?
Absolutely.
British legal experts judging British legal issues.
Got it. So, the most important thing is the nationality of the judge presiding over the case? Not whether it's "fair" or anything like that?
So, it would be ok if the judge was someone like Paul J. Mahoney, I guess?
Where did I mention the Nationality of the Judge?
Problem is Chizz, you read what you want to read and interpret it all in the same blinkered fashion.
Well, when you answered my question about Strasbourg judges with the comment "Absolutely. British legal experts judging British legal issues", I naturally assumed you meant British judges. In fact I can't see how else I could have interpreted that. What did you mean, if you didn't mean British judges?
It's looking increasingly likely that this Government wants to scrap the Human Rights Act. You, know, that piece of law which enshrines all sorts of rights that we should value, like the right to life, freedom from torture, freedom from slavery, respect for private life, right to marry and start a family, protection from discrimination, right to education, etc, etc.
Now, some people might think that's a good idea. I can't for the life of me think why, but some people might.
But not everyone is a fan of the idea. Carwyn Jones, the leader of the Welsh Assembly has said that scrapping the Human Rights Act "makes us look like a banana republic". The Scottish Parliament has said it will withhold legislative consent on scrapping the Act. And, as you can see in this letter (below) scrapping the Act will put us in breach of the UK-Republic of Ireland Good Friday Agreement.
So, well done Tories. So far you're doing a great job "bringing the country together".
you do like to over react dont you Chizz. It's like you think Cameron is gonna bring back slavery, torture and the work houses.
I'm sure a British Bill of Rights will cover all the laws and values you mention.
I don't think pointing out what the Scottish Parliament says, what the leader of the Welsh Assembly says and highlighting what impact this unnecessary legislation will have on the Good Friday Agreement should be called "over reacting".
Maybe getting together a petition would be over reacting. But someone *else* has done that already. So maybe there's 109,000 other people "over reacting" too?
It's looking increasingly likely that this Government wants to scrap the Human Rights Act. You, know, that piece of law which enshrines all sorts of rights that we should value, like the right to life, freedom from torture, freedom from slavery, respect for private life, right to marry and start a family, protection from discrimination, right to education, etc, etc.
Yep, you seem really calm about it all.
"right to life, freedom from torture, freedom from slavery, respect for private life, right to marry and start a family, protection from discrimination, right to education" are all chapter headings in the Human Rights Act.
I still don't see which part of my post you think is "over reacting".
I love how everyone on here and on social media behaves like David Cameron is some nasty right-wing politician. He's almost as much of a lefty as Miliband!!
How so? Genuinely interested to hear the reasons for someone describing Cameron as a lefty, unless he is left handed.
Cameron is viewed to being on the left of most of his party, hence why the more rebellious ones are from the right (e.g. many Tory MPs would side with those who wanted to leave in the EU when the referendum campaign begins). He's basically seen as the Tory version of Blair - dragging his party towards the centre ground kicking and screaming. Many outlets and pundits try to paint him as really right-wing but even a cursory look at most of his positions in certain areas disproves this. For some of these people, being to the right of Trotsky means you're some far-right swivel-eyed loony.
Which of the rights do the Tories want us to get rid of?
Just the one that an unelected Judge in Strasbourg interprets.
You'd prefer *our* unelected judges to the Strasbourg unelected judges?
Absolutely.
British legal experts judging British legal issues.
Got it. So, the most important thing is the nationality of the judge presiding over the case? Not whether it's "fair" or anything like that?
So, it would be ok if the judge was someone like Paul J. Mahoney, I guess?
Where did I mention the Nationality of the Judge?
Problem is Chizz, you read what you want to read and interpret it all in the same blinkered fashion.
Well, when you answered my question about Strasbourg judges with the comment "Absolutely. British legal experts judging British legal issues", I naturally assumed you meant British judges. In fact I can't see how else I could have interpreted that. What did you mean, if you didn't mean British judges?
Every country seems to get a judge if they've signed up. That means that a judge from Russia (yes, really), or that other centre for human rights excellence, Azerbaijan, for example could be hearing your case. Or one from Albania where a Defence Minister said “What remains to be done is to beat them up with a stick. If you don’t understand this, I can explain it: to beat them with a rubber stick.” when describing how he'd deal with a Gay Rights protest march..... So, on reflection maybe dealing with this stuff in UK courts is not so silly? BTW there's a situation vacant for the Irish judge, I'm reminded of Father Ted and the Eurovision Song contest - it's too expensive for us to be in it...
Also, I didn't realise that basic human rights were a British legal issue for British judges. I thought that they were a basic right for everyone. It will also cause problems with the good Friday agreement. This is not an issue to be taken lightly and it feels like the new government had yet to grasp that point.
You get human rights by virtue of being human. But how they are applied or enforced is territorial. Try your luck in Uganda or North Korea. What the convention does is to set out a set of rights that signatories agree on. Then in some of the civilised countries you have legislation enshrining those rights and a structure enabling the human to appeal if he or she believes they have been infringed. This debate shows that different interpretations are possible in certain cases even between countries we'd regard as civilised.
Exactly, so creating your own set of rules, rather than sticking to an agreed set in what is consider a civilised part of the world, should be treated with caution and viewed as incredibly dangerous no?
Will it be very different, no, but it should be treated with caution nonetheless. Even the smallest change can have a massive effect.
I don't think we disagree. But didn't we create our own set of rules when the HRA was enacted? Until we know just how exactly it is proposed to change these rules I wouldn't conclude it is incredibly dangerous. Caution is appropriate but, boy, there has been some reaction verging on the hysterical. I don't expect the Tories to make changes that I will find too controversial but if they do then I'll say so. For what it will be worth.
Cameron is viewed to being on the left of most of his party, hence why the more rebellious ones are from the right (e.g. many Tory MPs would side with those who wanted to leave in the EU when the referendum campaign begins). He's basically seen as the Tory version of Blair - dragging his party towards the centre ground kicking and screaming. Many outlets and pundits try to paint him as really right-wing but even a cursory look at most of his positions in certain areas disproves this. For some of these people, being to the right of Trotsky means you're some far-right swivel-eyed loony.
Thanks, I still wouldn't describe him as a lefty but I can see what you mean in terms of his party.
"For too long, we have been... Saying to our citizens as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone..."
Sounds great...
Do we need to tackle extremism, yes, but this act isn't. It's dealing with symptoms not causes. It won't stop extremists but what it does allow is for the government to silence critics who "don't conform to British values". Where do you draw the line? What if some nut job convinces the country to put them in charge. Their definition of values will be completely different. It is almost Orwellian in its ideals.
If anything you are marginalising more people, making them more angry and more likely to turn to extreme acts to get their point across.
Well I for one, applaud the fact, that people preaching hate & death to others, will not be permitted to do so in public.
If the likes of Anjem Choudary weren't allowed to preach hate on our streets, the likes of Lee Rigby may not have been murdered. RIP Lee.
The standards of what constitutes 'torture' varies wildly from state to state within the ECHR. You could find one state that would describe forcing a prisoner to remain standing for hours on end as torture. Another state within the ECHR might, on the other, think it is perfectly acceptable for a prisoner to be strung up with his arms tied for hours on end. As cafcfan has put, some states within the ECHR consider homosexuality a quasi-criminal offence.
Which of the rights do the Tories want us to get rid of?
Just the one that an unelected Judge in Strasbourg interprets.
You'd prefer *our* unelected judges to the Strasbourg unelected judges?
Absolutely.
British legal experts judging British legal issues.
Got it. So, the most important thing is the nationality of the judge presiding over the case? Not whether it's "fair" or anything like that?
So, it would be ok if the judge was someone like Paul J. Mahoney, I guess?
Where did I mention the Nationality of the Judge?
Problem is Chizz, you read what you want to read and interpret it all in the same blinkered fashion.
Well, when you answered my question about Strasbourg judges with the comment "Absolutely. British legal experts judging British legal issues", I naturally assumed you meant British judges. In fact I can't see how else I could have interpreted that. What did you mean, if you didn't mean British judges?
Every country seems to get a judge if they've signed up. That means that a judge from Russia (yes, really), or that other centre for human rights excellence, Azerbaijan, for example could be hearing your case. Or one from Albania where a Defence Minister said “What remains to be done is to beat them up with a stick. If you don’t understand this, I can explain it: to beat them with a rubber stick.” when describing how he'd deal with a Gay Rights protest march..... So, on reflection maybe dealing with this stuff in UK courts is not so silly? BTW there's a situation vacant for the Irish judge, I'm reminded of Father Ted and the Eurovision Song contest - it's too expensive for us to be in it...
So, Azerbaijan and Russia are happy to be bound by the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights, but they're a bit too onerous for Britain? Great!
Comments
Jan- Mar 2015
UK unemployment falls 35,000 to 1.83 M. A 7 year low.
Those in work rose by 202,000 to 31.1M, which is 73.5% and the highest since records began in 1971.
Average pay rose 2.2%. Regular pay is now growing at its fastest rate for nearly 4 years.
7 months in a row, pay increases have outstripped inflation (CPI).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32719779
Maybe getting together a petition would be over reacting. But someone *else* has done that already. So maybe there's 109,000 other people "over reacting" too?
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/save-our-human-rights?bucket=blast2
All I'm saying is that 901 voters did NOT decide the election result, contrary to your assertion.
Also, I didn't realise that basic human rights were a British legal issue for British judges. I thought that they were a basic right for everyone. It will also cause problems with the good Friday agreement. This is not an issue to be taken lightly and it feels like the new government has yet to grasp that point.
Banning orders for preaching hate in public places.
A pity it comes too late to save some lives, but great news again. Crying shame, we've had to put up with it for so many years.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32714802
You get human rights by virtue of being human. But how they are applied or enforced is territorial. Try your luck in Uganda or North Korea. What the convention does is to set out a set of rights that signatories agree on. Then in some of the civilised countries you have legislation enshrining those rights and a structure enabling the human to appeal if he or she believes they have been infringed. This debate shows that different interpretations are possible in certain cases even between countries we'd regard as civilised.
Yep, you seem really calm about it all.
Problem is Chizz, you read what you want to read and interpret it all in the same blinkered fashion.
The sooner FPTP is ditched, the better. Wouldn't it be lovely if we could look to freshen up our politics with a multi-party system where tactical voting has less influence?
Sounds great...
Do we need to tackle extremism, yes, but this act isn't. It's dealing with symptoms not causes. It won't stop extremists but what it does allow is for the government to silence critics who "don't conform to British values". Where do you draw the line? What if some nut job convinces the country to put them in charge. Their definition of values will be completely different. It is almost Orwellian in its ideals.
If anything you are marginalising more people, making them more angry and more likely to turn to extreme acts to get their point across.
Will it be very different, no, but it should be treated with caution nonetheless. Even the smallest change can have a massive effect.
The idea that you don't vote for the party who best fits your politics defeats the whole point of having more than 2 parties in any one ballot. You might as well be voting between being punched in the arm or kicked in the leg.
An extra 202,000 paying NI in the first quarter of 2015. Again, the first £1bn added to the NHS budget proposed by the Conservatives.
An extra (say) 150,000 paying Income Tax in the first quarter of 2015. Another £4bn in revenue to reduce the defecit.
I still don't see which part of my post you think is "over reacting".
BTW there's a situation vacant for the Irish judge, I'm reminded of Father Ted and the Eurovision Song contest - it's too expensive for us to be in it...
If the likes of Anjem Choudary weren't allowed to preach hate on our streets, the likes of Lee Rigby may not have been murdered. RIP Lee.
I agree with May & Cameron, we have been far too soft for too long.