Why scrap the human rights act?

[Loz]

Really? You don't think that's because of having it rather than because the UK's criminal justice, law enforcement and counter-terrorism forces are too moral to do anything that's against it? You don't know (either directly or through a relative) anyone who's brought a successful action at a benefits or employment rights tribunal?

Yes really, and no I don't know anyone who has done that. I Don't recall hearing of any sudden drastic improvements made on the day it was brought into force?....

Besides, I did say 'amending' - but I realise you tend to pick out parts of post that best suit your argumentative personality, so I won't take it totally seriously

[Loz]

Which isn't to say I think it is perfect. I think we should be able to deport convicted criminals even if they face hardship on their repatriation.

Exactly. with similar changes made for homegrown murders and such the like.

[Aspman]

Exactly. with similar changes made for homegrown murders and such the like.

 

What you have to bear in mind is that the people making the changes neither have the same opinions or aims as you.

 

I think some of us are just older and more cynical and therefore do not trust this (or any other really) government to make changes that would just benefit its citizens.

 

I've recently had exposure to central government bureaucracy on the inside and it's an ugly beast.

[Loz]

What you have to bear in mind is that the people making the changes neither have the same opinions or aims as you.

 

I think some of us are just older and more cynical and therefore do not trust this (or any other really) government to make changes that would just benefit its citizens.

 

I've recently had exposure to central government bureaucracy on the inside and it's an ugly beast.

 

I don't expect them to, it was just my feelings towards a topic on a car forum at the end of the day     just like everyone else who has posted 

[VWD]

The HRA, was used by a lot of legal folks to insist that the rights of their client was superior to that of the majority of the society that their client abused. Example- I was involved in a neighbour from hell case a few years ago. The parents were that involved with their "alternative" tobacco, that they neglected to curtail the thuggish activities of their ofspring ,who ran riot over the rest of the community. Barrister insisted that the community  desire to bring them to boot infringed their Human Rights, despite their activities causing problems to the rest of the community.

[Brimma]

The HRA, was used by a lot of legal folks to insist that the rights of their client was superior to that of the majority of the society that their client abused. Example- I was involved in a neighbour from hell case a few years ago. The parents were that involved with their "alternative" tobacco, that they neglected to curtail the thuggish activities of their ofspring ,who ran riot over the rest of the community. Barrister insisted that the community desire to bring them to boot infringed their Human Rights, despite their activities causing problems to the rest of the community.

I hope they failed miserably, as the majority's right to family life should outweigh a single right to family life

Or maybe their barrister was better than your barrister

[KenONeill]

Yes really, and no I don't know anyone who has done that. I Don't recall hearing of any sudden drastic improvements made on the day it was brought into force?....

Besides, I did say 'amending' - but I realise you tend to pick out parts of post that best suit your argumentative personality, so I won't take it totally seriously

I'll pass over you casting nushturshums (sp) at your perception of my personality and stay on topic.

 

My point (and I'd have thought a qualified lawyer might realise this without having it spelt out) is that the HRA effectively makes it impossible for the government to remove the rights I cited even though they existed prior to the HRA being added to UK statute law.

[Loz]

I'm not a qualified lawyer, but whatever.

I hadn't suggested there were no benefits to the act, just answered your question where you asked whether I had ever been through, or knew anyone who had been through, the processes you mentioned. And no, I haven't. That's just my personal experience.

And again, I said 'amending'. That's three times now

Funny how you ignore the post from other people who are making similar comments. But it only goes to further prove my other point

Edited 13 May, 2015 by Loz

[Brimma]

I'm not a qualified lawyer, but whatever.

I hadn't suggested there were no benefits to the act, just answered your question where you asked whether I had ever been through, or knew anyone who had been through, the processes you mentioned. And no, I haven't. That's just my personal experience.

And again, I said 'amending'. That's three times now

Funny how you ignore the post from other people who are making similar comments. But it only goes to further prove my other point

Maybe Ken's missed the fact that there is no human right to be misogynistic

[Richf]

I know people are enjoying an argument now but at the risk of adding to the debate, below is something i read yesterday on the UKIP site , I have no comment other than I found it interesting , I dont know if it is correct or not

 

link in full http://www.ukipmeps.org/news_1032_Conservative-pledge-on-human-rights-legislation-a-fraud.html#.VVH7BYDXrB8.twitter

 

I have highlighted sections in bold

 

 

 

 

"As long as Britain is in the EU, the UK can be stripped of voting power if it defies EU interpretation of human rights" - Diane James, UKIP MEP and home affairs spokesman

 

"Tory pledges to make the British Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of human rights are a fraud," said Diane James.

"Article 7 (TEU) of the Lisbon Treaty gives the European Council the power to strip a member state of its EU voting rights if it decides the state is in breach of Brussels' definition of human rights.  This is EU law. And since EU law is at all times superior to UK law, as long as we are members of the EU our Supreme Court will be supreme in name only."
 
"More, Conservative plans to draft a bill to break the link between British courts and the European Court of Human Rights are equally bogus.  The EU's European Court of Justice established decades ago that the European Convention on Human Rights is a document with special significance in the EU law. We have no escape from EU law as long as we are in the EU."


"More, the Lisbon Treaty requires the EU to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights, exactly the convention from which David Cameron wants the British people to believe he can free them. He can't. At the moment, all that is stopping Britain and the other 27 member states of the EU being belt-and-braces tied to the ECHR are technical problems on accession. Eurocrats are sorting out those problems now."
 
"There is no escape from EU control of our human rights legislation, or from domination of our law by the ECHR, as long as we remain members of the EU," said James.

[KenONeill]

I know people are enjoying an argument now but at the risk of adding to the debate, below is something i read yesterday on the UKIP site , I have no comment other than I found it interesting , I dont know if it is correct or not

 

link in full http://www.ukipmeps.org/news_1032_Conservative-pledge-on-human-rights-legislation-a-fraud.html#.VVH7BYDXrB8.twitter

 

I have highlighted sections in bold

 

 

 

 

"As long as Britain is in the EU, the UK can be stripped of voting power if it defies EU interpretation of human rights" - Diane James, UKIP MEP and home affairs spokesman

 

"Tory pledges to make the British Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of human rights are a fraud," said Diane James.

"Article 7 (TEU) of the Lisbon Treaty gives the European Council the power to strip a member state of its EU voting rights if it decides the state is in breach of Brussels' definition of human rights.  This is EU law. And since EU law is at all times superior to UK law, as long as we are members of the EU our Supreme Court will be supreme in name only."

 

"More, Conservative plans to draft a bill to break the link between British courts and the European Court of Human Rights are equally bogus.  The EU's European Court of Justice established decades ago that the European Convention on Human Rights is a document with special significance in the EU law. We have no escape from EU law as long as we are in the EU."

"More, the Lisbon Treaty requires the EU to accede to the European Convention on Human Rights, exactly the convention from which David Cameron wants the British people to believe he can free them. He can't. At the moment, all that is stopping Britain and the other 27 member states of the EU being belt-and-braces tied to the ECHR are technical problems on accession. Eurocrats are sorting out those problems now."

 

"There is no escape from EU control of our human rights legislation, or from domination of our law by the ECHR, as long as we remain members of the EU," said James.

Further to this, Human Rights are a devolved matter under the Scotland Act, so the most Westminster can do about "scrapping the ECHR in the UK" is to pass a law for England and Wales, and ask Holyrood nicely to do the same for Scotland. Does anyone else think they can see how well that will work?

[Aspman]

Don't think Nic is very keen on that idea

[justinbarrow]

Maybe scrapping the human rights act would pave the way for some really tough benefit cuts and bring in even more zero hour contracts, will have to wait and see.

[domhnall]

I'm not a qualified lawyer, but whatever.

 

I am :-)

 

So repealing the HRA will mean that instead of having the right to go to a UK court to enforce your human rights under the ECHR, your first port of call will be the court in Strasbourg. The point about the HRA was to bring human rights into a more accessible forum in the UK. 

 

Withdrawing from the European Convention of Human Rights is something even Vladimir Putin hasn't proposed. So our government is pushing the boat out and going beyond what Putin is willing to consider.  Strange times

[domhnall]

Don't think Nic is very keen on that idea

 

neither is Martin McGuinness

[jlwah]

Withdrawing from the European Convention of Human Rights is something even Vladimir Putin hasn't proposed. So our government is pushing the boat out and going beyond what Putin is willing to consider.  Strange times

Do you really think Vladimir Putin gives a ***k about the European Convention on Human Rights? Do you really think Vladimir Putin even knows that a European Convention on Human Rights exists?

 

Dream on!

[2SkodaFamily]

I really wasn't going to get drawn into this, but.....

Two comments.

1) what odds that they actually have no intention of modifying or withdrawing HRA but it was just a hook to gain votes from some UKIPpers?

2) One assumes that since several journalists, especially ones from The Scum, used the HRA to get their criminal cases thrown out, that Fleet Street will be campaigning against any changes? No? Thought not.

[domhnall]

Do you really think Vladimir Putin gives a ***k about the European Convention on Human Rights? Do you really think Vladimir Putin even knows that a European Convention on Human Rights exists?

Dream on!

No but even an extreme nut job like putin isn't daft enough to place his country outwith the scope of the UN framework. Thus is a UN framework to be implemented by regional treaties (in our case the ECHR) and then into national law by national parliaments. It's not even true to say that national courts can be overruled, national courts only have to "take account of" the rulings from Strasbourg.

Last year the vast majority of attempted appeals to Strasbourg weren't allowed and you can count on one hand the number where they overturned a UK ruling. And for all of this the government wants to take us outside the established international order to join the likes of North Korea and in so doing unpick the good Friday agreement.

It's got all the hallmarks of something that's not really been thought through.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[kilted]

No but even an extreme nut job like putin isn't daft enough to place his country outwith the scope of the UN framework. Thus is a UN framework to be implemented by regional treaties (in our case the ECHR) and then into national law by national parliaments. It's not even true to say that national courts can be overruled, national courts only have to "take account of" the rulings from Strasbourg.

Last year the vast majority of attempted appeals to Strasbourg weren't allowed and you can count on one hand the number where they overturned a UK ruling. And for all of this the government wants to take us outside the established international order to join the likes of North Korea and in so doing unpick the good Friday agreement.

It's got all the hallmarks of something that's not really been thought through.

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Surely not - a policy from a political party thats not really been thought out? Thought that was all off them!

[Aspman]

Last year the vast majority of attempted appeals to Strasbourg weren't allowed and you can count on one hand the number where they overturned a UK ruling. And for all of this the government wants to take us outside the established international order to join the likes of North Korea and in so doing unpick the good Friday agreement.

 

 

Yup you have to remember the stuff that's in the press is there because it's unusual. Otherwise it wouldn't be news.

[Tilt]

Maybe scrapping the human rights act would pave the way for some really tough benefit cuts and bring in even more zero hour contracts, will have to wait and see.

 

I think I am agreeing with you?

 

A number of disadvantaged or disabled people have died due to some tough benefit cuts, whilst on the other hand some of the larger families still claim thousands, in some cases weekly.

MP's are allowed to claim annual rents, that run into the tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers money, amongst other allowances. So wrong.

 

The human rights act serves well to protect thugs, robbers, immigrants and murderers, politicians or people in power and positions of trust, yet does nothing for these poor souls forced into accepting zero hour contracts, who then cannot even afford to live.

 

This country could be so much better if it wasn't for the greedy, and the lazy and the dishonest, or the greedy and lazy and dishonest w*nk*rs..

Starts at the top, though, imo.

[gadgetman]

It wasn't in the Queens speech, so unlikely to be attempted in this parliament

[Aspman]

DWP is blocking an FOI request regarding statistics showing how many people have died within six weeks of having their benefits stopped.

 

They've been ordered to comply by the ICO but are appealing to the FOI tribunal.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/06/11/statistics-refused-benefits-death_n_7561918.html

 

They will lose so I can only guess they are playing a delaying tactic.

 

Oh and we're paying for the lawyers arguing on both sides. the previous gov wasted a few million on similar FOI arguments which they invariably lost.

 

Link to the decision notice if you like that sort of thing  -  https://ico.org.uk/media/action-weve-taken/decision-notices/2015/1424160/fs_50557638.pdf

[gadgetman]

I doubt it's as many as I've seen quoted by some campaigners

[Tilt]

Not good though is it, however many or few.

 

These are the people who genuinely need help.