Scrap the Human Rights Act

**King Cnvt** · 22 August 2007, 08:22

And how will Sherry Bliar make £500K per year defending foreign criminals with tax payers money if they do that?

**Mailman** · 22 August 2007, 08:34

What interested me this morning was how those two morons who supported the human rights act were interviewed by the bbc on the news.

A few weeks ago the bbc interviewed some guy who got locked up for refusing to pay child support because he had his children for 50% of the time, his wife supported him and his children needed him YET the bbc went all jihadi on him.

YET this morning when interviewing these two pieces of scum they were so stand offish one would have thought the interviewers had fallen asleep!

Scrap the act or do what ever it is that France does because the human rights act does not work.

Actually people should understand that they have no rights, merely priviledges the Courts over time and the Government of the day have handed down.

The sooner people understand this the sooner we can move on.

Mailman

**dotnetter** · 22 August 2007, 08:42

I'm not much of a politics person, but I will definately be voting conservative, and I'm liking Cameron the more I hear. Well alot better than Blair and Brown anyway. But it's a lottery at the end of the day

**lilelvis2000** · 22 August 2007, 08:52

Gosh. Whilst I don't like criminal and scum abusing the act, none the less, having a single act is better than a hodgepodge of legislation and judicial decisions. It should just be fine tuned.

'Course the terrorism act wipes all the rights away anyway. The police could arrest someone for carrying a packet of chewing gum in a "threating manner" if they wanted.

**wendigo100** · 22 August 2007, 09:30

International human rights are fine. The problem is the way the UK implemented them in our Act. We seem to have deliberately designed a crock of sh1t.

**wendigo100** · 22 August 2007, 10:38

Originally posted by zeitghost

Situation Normal, then...

Yes, certainly recently.

Is it my imagination, or was new legislation much better thought-out before 1997?

**Joe Black** · 22 August 2007, 10:58

Originally posted by wendigo100 View Post

International human rights are fine. The problem is the way the UK implemented them in our Act.

I'm not sure if that's quite true. The UK 1998 act does add to the ECHR (European Convention on Human Rights), but from what I have seen the additions are more on the basis of administration, what should be done if there is an incompatibility in law, should compensation be made, who should make judgement etc.

The main difference brought about by the act is that claims under the ECHR are dealt locally by UK judges, and as such it's much easier (and no doubt less costly) for a claimant to make a case here, rather than perhaps waiting 5 years for it to reach the court in Strasbourg.

Even if the act is scrapped, the same rights can be upheld by the European courts. Though of course it might be a disincentive for some the time/effort involved in making their case.

**Devlin** · 22 August 2007, 11:31

If he gets "deported" to Italy, won't he eventually get an EU passport and return to the UK anyway?

**zathras** · 22 August 2007, 11:54

Originally posted by zeitghost

A little.

But we had a Cabinet in those days, rather than Government from the Sofa.

But then again, Major privatised the railways, gawdelpus.

I can think of possibly three bits of legislation created during the Conservative Government which were bad.

1. Rail Privatisation, Seperating track owner and rolling stock was always going to leave problems of responsibility.

2. Dangerous Dogs Act

3. Broadcasting Act bringing in blind Auctions for licenses.

The list for New Labour is far larger

Scrap the Human Rights Act