tories pledge to scrap human rights act

Former Member

hmmm im a bit torn on this

i'd prefer a proper bill of rights that cant be tampered with BUT in this country any rights etc can be tampered with so....


it's not even as if the human rights act has to be listened to as all a court can decide is that it's incompatable with the EHRA, they government don't have to listen :S


i'd prefer a fully drawn up constitution for this country, which sets parliament certain powers, courts certain powers and a true seperation of the institutions

Former Member

Nobody seems quite sure what to do with the Human Rights Act. People think it's responsible for meaning companies and councils, for instance, have to look at everything from a human rights perspective. I doubt that scrapping it would have much effect. Would scrapping it make any difference? Any legal minds on the boards, feel free to tell us.

I think a constitution would be a very good idea - in theory. The problem is, I'm not sure it would be possible to get politicians at the moment to actually agree on enough things to get one through. One move I would definitely welcome is removing the Royal Prerogative. It cannot be right that the PM can decide on his own whether he wants to take Britain to war without consulting anyone. Such decisions should be taken in Parliament. A constitution that strengthened Parliament would have my overwhelming support.

Former Member

I think the question that needs to be asked is "why the desire to scrap the act?". Which parts of the act are causing conern, and perhaps more importantly, to whom? I've not read much into this topic but i sense that someone behind this proposed action has an axe to grind.

Former Member

Let's make one thing clear:

There is nothing wrong with the Human Rights Act.

Stories in the right wing press about murderers, rapists and terrorists escaping punishment because of Human Rights Acts= fucking lies.

Every other story regarding Human Rights Act being the reason for this and that= fucking lies.

It is good that the HRA exists. Every other civilised country has it. It is only normal that we should have written rules about the most certain aspects of a person's basic rights.

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

It is good that the HRA exists. Every other civilised country has it. It is only normal that we should have written rules about the most certain aspects of a person's basic rights.

But why? Having to look at John Major's glasses was an abuse of our human rights, yes, but was there mass abuse of these basic rights before it came in?

Former Member

Double post, my apologies.

Former Member

stargalaxy wrote:

But why? Having to look at John Major's glasses was an abuse of our human rights, yes, but was there mass abuse of these basic rights before it came in?

It was certainly an anomaly that the laws did not exist.

Countless Britons have benefited from such laws since they were introduced. Of course, the ultra right wing tabloids would rather we didn't know about it.

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

Countless Britons have benefited from such laws since they were introduced. Of course, the ultra right wing tabloids would rather we didn't know about it.

Since the ultra right wing tabloids won't tell us, will you?

Former Member

the HRA guarentees certain rights without that we are not really a progressive country, some very minor amendments possibly. but the whole idea or re balancing the justice system via a bill of rights is daft, courts don't need emotional friends or relatives trying to sway a judge because they are involved and can't see the bigger picture and be objective , but judge do need a increase in common sense but no bill can do that.

Former Member

whats the big fuss?
we won't have any rights at all before long.
can't smoke can't hunt go to jail for not paying the telly man ...
random drug tests ...that bit realy gets my goat.
a guy down the pub recently went for the humble job of meter reader ...had to sign up to random drug testing ...he told them to fuck off ...good on him i say.

Former Member

Cant smoke...well you can, just not in pubs, I dont want to get lung cancer through passive thx;) .

Teh_Gerbil

Livin' on a prayer wrote:

Cant smoke...well you can, just not in pubs, I dont want to get lung cancer through passive thx;) .

passive thanks? ;p

Erm, well, the Tories are a bunch of twunts. Obviously moving furthur right... so, they want a Guantanamo or something do they? Where could we place it... erm... Shetland Isles somewhere?

Former Member

The human rights act has been abused way too much, I'm sure the act is suspsoed to protect all rights but it has been interpreted to protect criminals rather than the victims. Anyone who suggests there is nothing wrong with the current situation of the act then open your eyes!!! :shocking:

I don't understand how the rights of peadophiles rapists etc should be put before the people they have hurt and murdered.

I think the act should be completely scrapped. But I'm not sure if a UK bill of rights is necessary. In the UK, we are automatically born with rights unless parliament prohibits them. In theory this is dangerous as parliament could ban all of our rights but this has never happened so i doubt it will start to happen today. I'd like to see what would be included in this UK bill of rights, then I'll make my decision on it.
However, if it get's rid of the E.U Human rights then that's one good thing about it!

Former Member

Teh_Gerbil wrote:

passive thanks? ;p

Erm, well, the Tories are a bunch of twunts. Obviously moving furthur right... so, they want a Guantanamo or something do they? Where could we place it... erm... Shetland Isles somewhere?

What are you talking about?

Former Member

The Human Rights Act has allowed victims to sue governments for the very first time. The importance of the act cannot be overestimated.

Reports of the Act giving more rights to criminals than to victims, or of people abusing the system to make absurd claims are 99.99% lies by the press, and the rest very few cases indeed, not the thousands and thousands of them the right wing press would have us believe.

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

The Human Rights Act has allowed victims to sue governments for the very first time. The importance of the act cannot be overestimated.

Proof? Too right it can't be over estimated.

Aladdin wrote:

Reports of the Act giving more rights to criminals than to victims, or of people abusing the system to make absurd claims are 99.99% lies by the press, and the rest very few cases indeed, not the thousands and thousands of them the right wing press would have us believe.

Rubbish.... show me examples where the act has helped normal criminal cases than those you talk about the above.

Former Member

For example, until one brave woman sued the British government in Strasbourg, rape victims in England were subject to lengthy cross-examination in person by men who were alleged to have violated them.

As a result of a judgment protecting her right not to be subject to "inhuman and degrading treatment", the law in this country was changed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4990414.stm#vaira

Many more cases like that.

Now, why don't YOU provide proof and evidence of the Human Rights Act giving more protection to criminals than to victims, or being abused as the right wing tabloid press claims?

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4990414.stm#vaira

Many more cases like that.

Now, why don't YOU provide proof and evidence of the Human Rights Act giving more protection to criminals than to victims, or being abused as the right wing tabloid press claims?

lol... yopu call that proof? Her from Liberty for exmaple is bound to say that!!!!

I said REAL life examples from everyday people who ahve benefited such as one who has been raped, gone to the european courts and the criminal has been punished?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1337135.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2959200.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4988756.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4637758.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4131444.stm


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5000238.stm
Why that is it's so good?

Former Member

luke88 wrote:

lol... yopu call that proof? Her from Liberty for exmaple is bound to say that!!!!

Are you trying to suggest she invented it and such case didn't exist?

Think carefully before you answer...

I said REAL life examples from everyday people who ahve benefited such as one who has been raped, gone to the european courts and the criminal has been punished?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/1337135.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2959200.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4988756.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4637758.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4131444.stm


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/5000238.stm
Why that is it's so good?

So other than the first link, which is an opinion many disagree with, the rest of the links have absolutely nothing to do with Human Rights Laws, or are not a bad thing.

Well done.

Former Member

Aladdin wrote:

Are you trying to suggest she invented it and such case didn't exist?

No, what I am saying is that she will defend the E. U human rights act until the day she dies unfortunately because those hwo have done wrong, their rights are priority.

Former Member

No their rights are equal, but the human tendency for vengance over justice makes us want to remove their rights as part of the punishment.

Former Member

The tories dont want to scrap it full stop, they want to replace it with a similar one based on British values, which benefits society more. The human rights act is a very good thing, but parts of it need to be changed some what, to make it more effect and not benefit the criminal in some cases.

Former Member

What are 'British values' and how are they either exclusive of Britain or different to the values of other Europeans?

This is just another triumph for the real people who run this country: the right wing press.

Former Member

I always thought that the scales of justice were just that, they didnt favor either side.

Lets not forget that until the person is convicted they are a victim too.

Former Member

All of you thinking the Human Rights Act should be dissolved, are you saying that humans have no rights?

Former Member

migpilot wrote:

All of you thinking the Human Rights Act should be dissolved, are you saying that humans have no rights?

If they got rid of the act in the UK we would just have to go to the EU to get cases heard, rather than in the UK. This would of course cost even more.

Former Member

Bollocks talked on both sides really. The problem isn't neccessarily with the HRA full stop, though there are sometimes problems with the intepretation of it. British society tends to place more premium on the rights of the individual, in Europe that tends to be more balanced by the concept of civic responsibility. You're therefore going to get British judges making decisions based solely on the individual, whereas inEurope they'll balance that with the effect on the community as a whole. That doesn't mean that the HRA is a problem, just that parts of it need to be altered and guidance given to judges on its intepretation.

Against that if you get rid of the HRA it doesn't mean that torture will become common place and human rights suddenly get trampled as the Government rushes a dictatorship through the Commons. These things didn't happen before HRA, so there's no reason why they should hgappen afterwards.

As an aside some of the biggest threats to civil rights such as ID cards etc, are allowable under the HRA - so it doesn't seem that great an addition to liberty's arsenal.

Former Member

People are getting this wrong; the tories dont want to scrap the human rights act, they want to replace it. Nothing will change, its just Cameron, trying to think of ways to make his polices sound new and different than the other parties.