Tories 'may scrap Human Rights Act'

[ShadesWolf]

Just for your thoughts


Conservative leader David Cameron said his party would look at scrapping the Human Rights Act and replacing it with a new Bill of Rights. Mr Cameron claimed existing human rights legislation was hindering the fight against crime and terrorism - at the same time as failing to protect people's civil liberties. In an interview on BBC1's Sunday AM programme, he said the Tories wanted a law that delivered "human rights with common sense".

[rory_20_uk]

I just read that article.

I agree that having to comply with a British Bill of Rights as well as the Eu rights act is a recepie for confusion. However, I think that there is a logical answer to that one: withdraw from the EU if having our own legislation is not allowed.

But as it stands it is sound byte politics - one that is all we seem to get in the UK at the moment. Labour is also going to be getting tougher on crime - is it that time of year already? :laugh4:

There's many a slip between blowing hard on issues in opposition and doing anything in power.

~:smoking:

[Brenus]

“However, I think that there is a logical answer to that one: withdraw from the EU if having our own legislation is not allowed.” Everything bad is because EU. At least you are constant in you opinion (if not analyse). Bad bad EU…:laugh4:

[Red Peasant]

Ahh Brenus, we are dealing with Tories here.
The thread title should read: "Tories want to scrap Human Rights"

Now you can understand their mentality. ~;)

[Aenlic]

Sounds like you gents are starting to feel the pain we've been dealing with over here on the other side of the pond. Politicians using the so-called "war" on terror to revoke hundreds of years of hard-won civil liberties. Once the people are good and scarified, you can shove just about anything down their throats with only a minimum of complaint.

[rory_20_uk]

...Except that he was stating that instead a law shoud be passed instead, to be codified on the statutes. Hardly eroding.

Ah, so anti EU must be a Tory... :dizzy2:

Must be loads of Tories in France then... Or it could be that to base someone's political affiliation onto one issue is rather flawed.

Yeah, the EU does a great job... No constitution, a growing number of people in the EU don't want it, and after subsidising wine that no one wants is now deciding to pay for the same vines to be destroyed!

The EU: "If it's worth doing, it's worth doing in triplicate"

~:smoking:

[InsaneApache]

Ahh Brenus, we are dealing with Tories here.
The thread title should read: "Tories want to scrap Human Rights"

Now you can understand their mentality. ~;)

The Human rights act is a mess. Inconsidered legislation hastily forced through parliament.

It's no good the government blaming the judges and the civil servants for implimenting it. It is, however, typical of the hamfisted and illprepared way the present HM. Government approaches much of it's legislation.

The Human Rights Act should be torn up and chucked in the bin. A more measured and considered legislation should be introduced.

This is just my opinion.

If there is a need for such an act in the UK, then it should be accompanied by a Human Duties Act. The duties considered might be, say, a duty not to burgle a dwelling or commercial property. Maybe it could say a duty not to break into your car and pinch the CD player, or punch you in the gob because they didn't like the way you were "lukkin at 'em"....If they breached the Human Duties Act, then they abrogate any rights under the Human Rights Act.

Like I said, just my opinion.

[rory_20_uk]

Sadly, expecting a government to pass legislation that might enshrine an expected mode of behaviour would hit at least two sets of issues:

People are dead keen on their "rights". Few are as keen in being told that they have to behave, ergo a possible vote looser.

Haven forbid that any group of people should feel descriminated against in such an act. After the language has been diluted to take into account the rights of every conceivable group of individuals would there be anything left?

I heartily agree that once people fall foul of the law they can not expect the same coverage by the law until they have paid for their crimes.

And that would go as much for scum like Lord Archer and other rich effluent (footballers, "A" list drug users...) as anyone else.

~:smoking:

[Brenus]

“No constitution”. Has England a Constitution?

“Inconsidered legislation hastily forced through parliament”: Yep, through Parliament. It is what most of the anti-EU miss (or don’t want) to see. EACH country has to adopt a law regarding EU regulations.
One of the weak point of the EU parliament is it can’t implement the voted regulations which is good at some points, but not so good for others.

“I heartily agree that once people fall foul of the law they can not expect the same coverage by the law until they have paid for their crimes.” Human Right were imagined to protect innocent against the abuses of the powerful. Stop to think it was done to protect the criminals. That is a trick used by Politicians in order to get your agreement for the disolving of your freedom.:wall:

Just a suggestion: One day, go in a country where you need a visa, let’s say for 6 months, one year. Find a job, and go to get the feeling when you had to renew your working permit in front of a Public Servant (I like the sound of this expression, servant ha ha ha) who has all the power to cancel it, or to refuse to renew it, without any explanation. It is a very nice experience. Perhaps, after that, you will see the need of the Human Rights.

[Red Peasant]

Like the Roman Republic we have an unwritten constitution based on custom, practice and checks and balances between the various organs of government.

[Red Peasant]

IA:

Wanted

GSOH

:laugh4:

[rory_20_uk]

“Inconsidered legislation hastily forced through parliament”: Yep, through Parliament. It is what most of the anti-EU miss (or don’t want) to see. EACH country has to adopt a law regarding EU regulations.
One of the weak point of the EU parliament is it can’t implement the voted regulations which is good at some points, but not so good for others.

I'm missing the point. So what? Yes, each country does have to enforce legislation. Ironically a democratic body HAS to pass laws that others may have wanted. Great... :wall:

“I heartily agree that once people fall foul of the law they can not expect the same coverage by the law until they have paid for their crimes.” Human Right were imagined to protect innocent against the abuses of the powerful. Stop to think it was done to protect the criminals. That is a trick used by Politicians in order to get your agreement for the disolving of your freedom.:wall:

I live in London. The police can search me anywhere at any time with no need for explanation. London is under terrorist legislation. Funnily enough the police are not strip searching everyone and carting people off to the gulags - yet there is existing legislation for them to do that!
We should worry about the victims, then the populace then the cru

Just a suggestion: One day, go in a country where you need a visa, let’s say for 6 months, one year. Find a job, and go to get the feeling when you had to renew your working permit in front of a Public Servant (I like the sound of this expression, servant ha ha ha) who has all the power to cancel it, or to refuse to renew it, without any explanation. It is a very nice experience. Perhaps, after that, you will see the need of the Human Rights.[/QUOTE]

So, I've gone to their country, and suddenly I should have a RIGHT to be there? Shock horror! They might not renew it!!! That's the POINT of a 6 month visa!!! :wall:

Our checks and balances do leave a lot to be desired. However, looking over the pond to where they are (supposedly) enshrined power seems to be concentrated even more than over here!

~:smoking:

[InsaneApache]

IA:

Wanted

GSOH

:laugh4:


Do I apply within? :laugh4:

[Aenlic]

Like the Roman Republic we have an unwritten constitution based on custom, practice and checks and balances between the various organs of government.

We used to have a government of checks and balances in the US between the various organs of government. Now we have no checks at all and a unitary executive, which likes to wear long trench coats and wave its organ at passersby. :wink:

[Flavius Clemens]

The Human Rights Act is about applying the European Convention on Human Rights, which came out of the Council of Europe rather than the EU. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/948143.stm
Of course that's not to say the EU hasn't impacted UK law, but in this case it isn't guilty.

[Brenus]

I'm missing the point”: Obviously. The point was to blame EU is none sense because local Parliament has to vote any law… So, n big letters now, EU IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR NATIONAL BLUNDERS.:dizzy2:

“Funnily enough the police are not strip searching everyone and carting people off to the gulags - yet there is existing legislation for them to do that”: No, police can shoot you in the head, pretending you jump a barrier, we were wearing suspect clothes or to shoot people in their home (200 police officers against two suspects who were innocents) or jail without any reasons during 6 months a suspect. You are right, it is not the Gulag, it the “letter de Cachet”.:2thumbsup:

“the victims”: I do. Even the one jailed for something they didn’t do. Remember the Irish? England experienced of this kind of laws.

“So, I've gone to their country, and suddenly I should have a RIGHT to be there? Shock horror! They might not renew it!!!” The purpose is to experiment dictatorship, when you don’t exist, when you are under the rules of despotism…
And yes, if you invest in a country because you work there, and suddenly every thing is gone because without any reason somebody decide you have to go, yes it is spoliation. So, according to you, Idi Amin Dada and Mugawe had and have the right to expel all the foreigners… Strange conception of democracy…:dizzy2:

[rory_20_uk]

Ok again... Parliment HAS to enforce EU laws. If they don't there's trouble. Sod national blunders - tehy HAVE TO FOLLOW EU LAWS!

The police are onto a looser aren't they: you might have heard that the police are bieng blamed for NOT acting on 7/7 intelligence... Damned if they do or if they don't.

With the Irish, we seemed to release a lot of known terrorists in essence as their mates would blow things up if they were left in jail. Great... :dizzy2:

What has work permits got to do with Democracy? That's a lovely straw man you're beating up! Let me know when you've got your breath back, OK? :laugh4:

~:smoking:

[English assassin]

HRA= nothing whatsoever to do with the EU, as was pointed out above.

There is nothing wrong with the HRA. It gives a bit more power to judges and a bit less to politicians. Good. Judges are fairly inteligent, and take decisions based on evidence. If they get it wrong you have the right of appeal. Politicians are stupid, take decisions based on what the tabloids tell them the prejudices of the people are, and are completely unaccountable.

Democracy is pants. More power to lawyers.

[Kralizec]

Democracy is pants. More power to lawyers.

Into the sig!

Rory: if you read Brenus' post and actually tried to grasp what he was saying, you'll notice that he meant it's unjust to send away workers arbitrarily without cause and explanation.

[English assassin]

At last, a sig contribution I am truly proud of. :2thumbsup:

My invoice is in the post.

[rory_20_uk]

Rory: if you read Brenus' post and actually tried to grasp what he was saying, you'll notice that he meant it's unjust to send away workers arbitrarily without cause and explanation.

I disagree. I have worked on 6 month contracts before. When they ended so did my wage. That's what a 6 month contract means.

There is no obligation to offer explanation at the end of a contract, and it is certainly not unjust. To be sent away at 4 months would be, but not at the end of the term of one's contract.

Don't belittle me by saying I didn't grasp the post. I disagreed with it.

~:smoking:

[Brenus]

What has work permits got to do with Democracy?” Showing respect, dignity for every human being… :idea2:

“tehy HAVE TO FOLLOW EU LAWS!”. Ok, one time more, to enforce a recommendations (EU do not issue laws, do you understand that?) the Local Parliament has to agree and to vote. If they vote no, well, no law in the country.:book:

“The police are onto a looser aren't they: you might have heard that the police are being blamed for NOT acting on 7/7 intelligence... Damned if they do or if they don't.” Well, no. Perhaps you ignore the fact that few years ago France was under bombing campaign from Muslim Extremists of the GIA (Algerian). In Lyon, the Gendarmerie shot dead a terrorist (the last one) who refused to surrender. It wasn’t a problem because the guy was guilty… So, if the police or equivalent follow clear procedures and is trained properly and does the job properly (in not going to toilets when looking for a potential terrorist who was allowed to climb in a bus) every thing is ok.

“With the Irish, we seemed to release a lot of known terrorists in essence as their mates would blow things up if they were left in jail.” That a sentence I was waiting for. Better to kill 10 innocents than to leave one guilty alive… “Seem” and “known terrorists in essence” (contradiction in term, they are either known, either in essence), “would”, are a lot a suppositions.
No, here, as you know, the reference was about the four Irish, the police knew they were innocents and put in jail to please their political masters…
Nice try…:2thumbsup:

“There is no obligation to offer explanation at the end of a contract”: Who spoke of a contract? I spoke about a visa (working permit) which can be cancelled as a Civil Servant will. It could be agreed for sex or money.

But I grasp your point: No human right, fair enough. Long live Pinochet, Noriega, Videla, Mugawe etc…
And in order to look better, you faint to understand what is written…:2thumbsup:

[Kralizec]

I disagree. I have worked on 6 month contracts before. When they ended so did my wage. That's what a 6 month contract means.

There is no obligation to offer explanation at the end of a contract, and it is certainly not unjust. To be sent away at 4 months would be, but not at the end of the term of one's contract.

A contract is something else entirely then a working visa.

Governments or their workers acting in their capacity don't and shouldn't have the same freedom to arbitrarily use their power as individuals.
Individuals should be treated by the government equally in equal cases. Poor governance would be to lenghten Achmeds visa but not that of Ali, whilst there are no relevant differences between the two persons. Hence in any civilized country government institutions are obliged to provide argumentation for their decision. If a government clerk doesn't treat persons equally in equal circumstances, that's indeed a breech of human rights.

A while back I remember reading in the paper that of all visas granted by civil servants in the UK, a disproportionally large amount of them were large breasted females. Makes you wonder :laugh4: